Peter Memishian wrote:
> It's not revolving around our DHCP implementation, it's revolving around
> our DHCP architecture. The architectural decision was to have the client
> manage only the essentials and leave the rest to dhcpinfo. While one
> could argue about what is essential, at this point that ship has sailed.
> I don't know why you find it uncomfortable to base other decisions on this
> architecture.
>
> I agree administrators may be surprised by this, and if we (actually, the
> guys we contracted to do the original work in 2.6) had to do it over again
> maybe it would be done differently. But I'm not trying to redesign that
> architecture, I'm just using it as a guide to keep the overall behavior of
> the DHCP client consistent. To me, it's consistent to have the DHCP
> client watch over the parameters that it is documented to configure.
Just wondering, how will NWAM play here? Will the sys admin
have more or less say on how the system (currently dhcpagent)
manages DHCP?
--
K. Poon.
kacheong.poon at sun.com
