В 11:10 -0700 на 22.10.2009 (чт), Owen DeLong написа: > OK... Here's the real requirement: > > Systems administrators who do not control routers need the ability in > a dynamic host configuration mechanism to > assign a number of parameters to the hosts they administer through > that dynamic configuration mechanism. These > parameters include, but, are not limited to: > > 1. Default Router > 2. DNS Resolver information > 3. Host can provide name to server so server can supply dynamic > DNS > update > 4. IP Address(es) (v4, v6, possibly multiple v6 in the case of > things > like Shim6, etc.) > 5. NTP servers > 6. Boot server > 7. Site specific attribute/value pairs (ala DHCPv4 Options) > > These assignments MUST be controlled by a server and not by the router > because the router is outside of the > administrative control of the Systems Administrator responsible for > the hosts being configured. >
And to add a real-world case for this - two months ago at HAR (hacking at random, a convention in the Netherlands) I was in the network team, handling fun stuff like DHCP servers, DNS, etc.. We also provided IPv6 connectivity there (we had a /16 IPv4 zone and a /48 IPv6 zone), and at some point we asked the question around - ok, how should we provide DNS and other useful information for the V6 only people? After a while with all the brains around, the decision was to write it on the datenklos through the field, where people can read it and configure it in their browsers. This would've been funny if it wasn't so sad. OTOH, for V4 everything with the DHCP worked fine (as it has always done, even at an event of this size), as is my experience with all the networks I've administered. Saying that DHCP doesn't work for me is extremely weird, as to me this means someone made specific effort to fuck it up. Finally - we have something that works, that's called DHCP. It might not be perfect, it might have some weird issues and implementations, but it's actually making our lives easier, is tested and works. I'd love anything that would be better, but as an option, not as the only choice I have. And it's not just the protocol that I care about. I care about that it's implemented in a HOST, where I can play with the software as much as possible, instead on a ROUTER, which is a vastly different device with rarely-updated OS, and even in the case where they're both the same machine(as in small office environments), they're again handled at different layers (kernel vs userspace). There are reasons that we're using what we're using, and not all of them are "because we're masochistic idiots". -- Regards, Vasil Kolev
signature.asc
Description: Това е цифрово подписана част от писмото
