At Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:38:35 -0700, Bob Hinden wrote: > > There are issues raised in solutions like this to insure that the > co-located services are adequately tied together. For example in case of a > "DHCP server in the DNS server" the processes need to be tied together in a > manner that the DHCP process would not provide the address of the DNS > server if the DNS server process was down. Or that the DHCP server not > provide the addresses for other DNS serves unless it knows that they are up > and available.
I suspect that upon close examination all solutions will have issues along these lines (anycast certainly does). In any case, I agree that such issues are part of the analysis. > So I think the examples you raised do fit with the definition. My intent > was that the requirements should allow for a of number different > solutions. Picking a specific solution requires evaluating the strengths > and weaknesses of the specific solution. Ok, thanks. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
