> > 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?
I don't quite see how NWAM would be involved here. Could you provide an example? -- meem
