Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:
> As usual, it's a tradeoff, and the choice of tradeoff is dependent on
> one's background.
> Those of us who come from the Free Software chaos will prefer small,
> self-contained protocols that can be implemented by small, loosely
> coupled groups of developers, and that communicate through well-
> defined, stable APIs.
Yes, I've lived in this space for 20+ years.
In that space, we still don't have a DHCP client which can sensibly interact
with an 1X supplicant in order to get me on a network which has a working
layer-3 uplink, even though the layer-2 signal strength is not the strongest.
(I call then "NOTworks", an AP sitting somewhere with a broken DSL link)
NetworkManager and its equivalent in Android is closest we have gotten, and
there are still significant issues: they are getting better, but it hasn't
been fun.
And it's not the size of the protocol that really matters.
One problem that the free software chaos suffers from is that much of the
tools that we have (quagga, ISC DHCP, for instance) are designed by
"big organizations" for "big organizations".
> Those who come from large, well-managed, centralised organisations
> will prefer large protocols, and won't want to bother with the tricky
> job of defining stable interfaces between loosely coupled software
> components.
I think that are significantly overstating this situation.
Big organizations are seldom well organized or well managed, and they hate
forklift upgrades, so they actually prefer small incremental additions as
well.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
pgpDNghECo1au.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
