Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-02

From: "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 13:13:31 -0800

Hi,

I also concur.  And strongly urge that we not plan to make
ZC-capable devices support multiple IP addresses (e.g.,
link-local and also DHCP-derived) on the same interface.

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald (consulting architect at Sharp Labs America)
  High North Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Ferguson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 9:21 AM
To: Myron Hattig
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-02

At 11:47 PM 02/24/2000 -0800, Myron Hattig wrote:

>Daniel's response represents my understanding of the common thinking. I
also
>agree with these thoughts because many home networks will have DHCP
servers.
>I hope to advance a solution that does not require a DHCP server in a home
>network, but IMHO it would be impractical to have an IP host config ZC
>protocol that does not operate in the presence of a DHCP server. Also, I
>think it would be equally impractical to build a product that did not
>operate in the presence of a DHCP server.

I concur.

- paul

---

From: "Garry M. Paxinos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 16:31:43 -0500

> link-local and also DHCP-derived) on the same interface.

FWIW, I agree completely:

   it's important that ZC-capable devices can operate in a 
   "normal" IP environment.

   and adding multiple IP address support to ZC-cabable 
   devices overly complicates several issues.

Take care,
Pax.

-- 
Metro Link Incorporated. 4711 N. Powerline Rd. Fort Lauderdale Fl, 33309
Voice: +1.954.938.0283x414 Fax: +1.954.938.1982 Email: [email-masked]
       ACM SIGGRAPH Treasurer    http://www.siggraph.org/~pax/

  "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes
                  but in having new eyes." -Proust

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:21:46 -0800 (PST)

>    devices overly complicates several issues.

Aren't multiple IP addresses a "normal" IPv6 environment?

-Dave

---

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:27:51 +0100 (MET)

>    devices overly complicates several issues.

Ira, Garry,

I understand that current hosts do not support >1 address per
interface.  But they don't support ZC features either.  

I believe it may be worth while supporting both a ZC (local)
address and a configured (global) address to ease transition
in and out of ZC mode.  If you have a ZC network which is fully
numbered and works fine (say your house), you don't want to have
to renumber and see stuff stop working (even temporarily) when
your dial-up networking comes up, your cable modem gets plugged
in again, etc.

The argument actually applies to all ZC protocols (host conf,
addressing, service discovery, mc addr conf).  As long as these
configurations are only used locally, they may not conflict with
the global configuration.  This is more complicated, agreed.  But
let's consider it.

Erik

---

From: "Garry M. Paxinos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:55:27 -0500

> the global configuration.  This is more complicated, agreed.  But

Point well taken.  The idea of in-home services stopping for a
(hopefully short) period of time is a major detractor.

My viewpoint comes from implementing multiple IP addresses
in a very small environment.  But from a perceived reliability
standpoint it would be well worth the extra 'cost'.

So, I'll adjust my previous statement to indicate that we believe
that DHCP is still needed in a ZC environment, but multiple IP
aliases would be ok as long as there is no overlap.

Thanks,
Pax.