On Mar 18, 2004, at 8:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18 March 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
The fact that there is a solution out there, which fits the needs of some users, does not mean that there can not (or should not) be a different kind of solution which would seem to be much more appropriate in some other scenarios or for some other users.
As I've said before in reference to the recursive name server discovery
discussion, I don't believe it benefits the network operations community
to have multiple solutions to these kind of requirements.
Neither does it benefit the implementor community which then does not know what to implement,
nor how to make all the alternative solution works together.
So unless someone can come with a better reason than 'I do not like to read the DHCPv6 spec because
it is 120 pages long', please let's stick to one solution and move on to try to solve other still unresolved issues.
- Alain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
