Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ip1394-dhcp-01.txt

From: Kim Kinnear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:34:05 -0400 (EDT)

At 03:40 PM 6/23/99 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
..
>I understand, but I think this is an extrapolation from your
>understanding of your own server that isn't actually valid for all
>servers.  I've no idea how many servers would have problems with
>either solution, though.  My server will probably operate correctly as
>it is with either solution, but it'll be slow if there are a lot of
>clients like this, and I'd prefer to avoid that.

	I understand.  My server isn't going to like one solution,
	but will operate fine with the other.  You are correct,
	we don't hash the MAC address if there is a client-identifier.
>
>Where I think you and I are really differing is as to whether or not
>this standard requires that people install a new DHCP server.   My
>take on it is that it's okay if it requires that.   It sounds like
>you'd prefer not to require that.   I don't know what to suggest -
>it's obviously easier on me if 1394 requires a server upgrade than it
>is for you, but I still think I'm right!   :')

	I'm not really worried about this for my customers, since I've
	made the changes to allow no MAC addresses recently (and know just
	how many places that it affected, which was more than I expected).

	My real issue was that it seemed like if there was a reasonable
	way for the 1394 folks to write a draft that would "just work"
	with existing servers, that would be better than requiring 
	server changes.  But it sounds like that may be hard to do, since
	it depends on edge conditions that few have really explored and
	are likely to differ between server implementations.

	So I guess it isn't really a big deal.

	Cheers -- Kim

>
>BTW, is 1394 == firewire?
>
>			       _MelloN_
>