On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 08:06 +0200, Alan DeKok wrote: > It does something. But it doesn't meet the goal of reliability.
Ah, now that's different. But again, it's reliable *enough*. It does leave a nice big hole for people like Nominum to prodyuce something that is *very* reliable. > You've been lucky. Perhaps you've just been unlucky? It's just as good an argument. > See the RELNOTES that is included with ISC for a > series of bug fixes to the protocol. Both the implementation and the > protocol design have been changed substantially to avoid issues seen by > real-live people in the field. Good. That's to be expected and a good thing. > Yes. A few quick tests demonstrated that failure. See earlier > messages in this thread. Nope - "tests" do not show a theoretical failure. Careful argument shows theoretical failure. Tests can only show a failure in an implementation that *may indicate* a theoretical failure. I'd really like to see the discussion of a theoretical failure (i.e., a case where failure must occur if the protocol is implemented correctly). I'm not stating this as some sort of challenge, I genuinely would like to see that discussion. > That doesn't inspire confidence. It's not just a bug, which even > FreeRADIUS has had from time to time. The entire design of the protocol > has mutated and changed based on discovery of something they missed... > YEARS after the protocol was implemented. See also the massive changes > in the protocol between 3.0 and 3.1. Um - that's normal. For any protocol! It's good. > i.e. ISC claims to implement the protocol. If its performance is so > much worse than Nomimum, then either (a), ISC didn't implement the > protocol as spec'd, or (b) Nominum didn't. Hm. Or Nominum implemented it better... > I really don't know. I'm happy to say that both the protocol and the > implementation are "less than optimal". Oh, we're in full agreement there. > I'm sure that they developed their own standard for communication > between Nominum servers. Watching it happen suggests very strongly that they are following the standard (such as it is) or something very similar. Whatever: Go for it, and I look forward to the new FreeDHCP server :-) Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
