Mike Gerdts wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Sundar > Yamunachari<sundar.yamunachari at sun.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The updated functional specifications for AI transport mechanism - version >> 2 is available at >> http://wikis.sun.com/display/OSOLInstall/AI+Transport+Mechanism+v2+-+Functional+Specification >> . The major changes from version 1 are >> >> 1. Added a use case for archive based installation >> 2. Added a use case for null transport >> 3. Added more information in the P2P use case >> 4. Added a documentation about web server cache and various environment >> (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/auto_install/ai_design/web_server_cache.txt) >> 5. Combined use case 1 and 2 (solaris.zlib) and removed references to the >> zlib files. >> 6. Changed title and other minor edits. >> >> Please review and provide feedback. >> > > My main complaint with the architecture is that it makes DHCP a > required component, even with wanboot. I would much prefer to see > that DHCP is not used with wanboot (just as is the case with S10 and > earlier) and that there is a very small grub-ish iso available that > can act similar to wanboot for x86. Such an iso should be OS-release > agnostic, just as the wanboot code in OBP is OS-release agnostic. > > In many environments, DHCP is controlled by a team that has little to > no interest in helping to support server installations (e.g. it is > controlled by the team that worries about Windows laptops). There are > sometimes specific policies against allowing DHCP (particularly for > DMZ's and other semi- or un-trusted networks) that do not exist for > HTTP and/or HTTPS. This will serve as an inhibitor to adoption of > OpenSolaris in such environments. > > Hi Mike,
While I agree with you and Dave Miner that requiring DHCP is not a desired situation, that specific issue is, I believe, outside the scope of this functional specification. If there are sections of that document that seem to imply otherwise, that will need to be fixed. Is there a specific section of this document that is causing concern? Thanks, Keith
