Ole Troan wrote: > ... > would you be happier if we renamed it to SNCP (Simple Node > Configuration Protocol)? :-)
Actually, yes. Routers are not hosts, so configuring routers with what is titled a host specific protocol will create more confusion than it is worth. > > for me this boils down to picking a packet format on the wire. DHCP > offers a more flexible option format, is more extensible, has a > defined relay mechanism, offers a Reconfigure mechanism so it is > possible to poke the requesting router. I have no problem with using > ICMP PD, my point is that as we move along it is going to look awfully > much like DHCP. If we are going to need a stateful protocol tied to an authentication system, using the wire format and option richness of a widely deployed protocol makes more sense than inventing a new one. At the same time, going that route requires a serious look at the defined options to find any potential security holes that may exist because there was a historical assumption that the option applied to an end system not a router. If a router requesting one of the existing options opens a big hole, we really do need a new protocol. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
