Kacheong Poon writes: > > The latter is the dynamic addressing you're rightly pointing out as > > unhealthy. The former, though, is just supporting -- or even just > > _viewing_ -- the machines on the network that have fallen through the > > cracks. > > > I guess the original idea behind having LLA is for setting > up a network without the need to have a, say DHCP server. > All the machines plugged in that network can "just" work, > and all of them are using LLA. In the above scenario, are > we trying to "stretch" the LLA solution to handle something > it is not designed for? Is this case really a problem our > customers are facing?
I've heard both cases from LLA folks. And somewhat ironically it seems to work better in the error-recovery case than in the permanent-use case. If it's actually intended for permanent use, then I'd have to question whether it's really the right thing to do at all. It seems to me that an automatically-configured-and-enabled DHCP server would be far, far better for those usage cases. > > In addition to the trivial "how do I talk to my printer?" problem, I > > think the underlying problems it's trying to address are: > > > > - Too many people are stuck on SWAN-like networks where somebody > > else controls the infrastructure and forbids the use of > > "unauthorized" DHCP servers. If you're unable to get an address, > > LLA gives you a "degraded" mode of operation where you can still > > reach some local services and perhaps file a service desk ticket > > on your problem. ;-} > > > Not talking from the technical view point, the above may > actually be a violation of the network policy. In fact, > if Solaris supports this, the network admin will probably > turn off this feature in all the Solaris machines. You can already do it via manual "ifconfig" if you want. As for the "violation," I can imagine that's true, but from a technical point of view it seems extremely silly. > > - Many systems (including Solaris!) are designed so that boot time > > is "special," and if the right things don't happen then because > > one of the servers is temporarily out, then the system is in a > > lame or even semi-comatose state. If this leads to a lack of an > > address, LLA gives you a way to log in remotely and fix or at > > least restart the system. > > > I don't really know if this is actually an "important" > aspect of LLA. This assumes that the network is the only > way to communicate with the machine in trouble and somehow > that machine using LLA can be found. Is this a problem > our customers are facing today? It happens often enough to me that it seems plausible. But you're quite right that talking with _customers_ would be by far the best way to answer the deployment and usage questions. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
