On 2007-08-01 21:01, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 01 August, 2007 09:03 -0700 "David W. Hankins"
This is also just another version of the "eat our own dogfood"
story: if we don't find the dogfood palatable --whether because
of its basic specification or its formulation or packaging in
practice-- then we need to do something about it.
Clever, but wrong: networks much larger than 1,200 laptops use
DHCPv4 on a daily basis all over the Internet without similar
I know that. I've also got some hypotheses as to why we have
problems and they don't, but my hypotheses aren't backed by
solid data and analysis and hence aren't worth much. So do you
have an explanation for the repeated IETF problems?
Generically, I think there must be two places to look for the
explanations (plural, certainly):
1. The fact that the network is expected to be shaken down within
hours instead of progressively over some large number of days.
It goes from small scale test to full load in about 24 hours.
2. The fact that the client systems are highly heterogeneous
and some of them will probably be running beta code.
That combination of circumstances is going to stretch any dogfood.
not, are you willing to join me in suggesting it is about time
the IETF gets to the bottom of these problems, gets the finger
pointed in an appropriate direction, and gets the problem or
Personally I have no doubt that it's strongly in Verilan's
enlightened self-interest to get to the bottom of the problems.
It would be interesting to know if the observed failure modes
are caused by bad implementation, by lack of robustness
in the various protocol designs, or both.
Ietf mailing list