[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       opensolaris-networking-discuss
Subject:    Re: [networking-discuss] ISC DHCP
From:       James Carlson <james.d.carlson () sun ! com>
Date:       2008-09-26 21:53:02
Message-ID: 18653.22974.785674.786491 () gargle ! gargle ! HOWL
[Download RAW message or body]

Harely Race writes:
> Thanks for the quick reply.  The second link was where I saw a "discussion" of \
> replacing Sun dhcpd with ISC's.  I was just wondering if it had taken off the \
> ground or had the whole "proposal" be scrubbed.

As far as I know, no.

> "Anyone can complain ..."
> 
> I take it that you really don't like people complaing?  Yes, it can be tiresome at \
> times and demoralizing at other times, but sometimes it does one good to at least \
> hear out the complaint.

No ... I guess I should have been more verbose in my answer.

There's a big difference between saying "we should ditch that awful X
code and replace it with Y code!" on a mailing list on one hand, and
actually having a coherent _plan_ to make such a replacement on the
other.  It's that latter part that I haven't seen for ISC DHCP.

Simply ripping out the existing DHCP server and tossing in the ISC one
is -- I believe -- a non-starter.  It would instantly break all of the
people currently *using* the existing DHCP server.  There must at
least be an upgrade strategy or facility that makes the replacement
*possible*.

Second, someone needs to look into the features of the existing DHCP
server and figure out how they match up against the ISC one.  Where
the ISC one lacks a feature or lags in performance, that someone would
have to figure out whether that feature "matters" to the users (and
thus could be dropped) or whether the ISC server needs to be fixed.

Finally, someone has to do the actual engineering work to remove the
packages for the old server, put the new one in place, and test the
heck out of it, including all the machinery used for upgrades.

Note that allowing them to "co-exist" isn't a reasonable option, as it
just foists the costs off onto the users, who have to determine which
one to use, and have to cope (somehow!) with projects that target
integration with one or the other server, but not both.  (As in "sure,
you can use our new WhizBang platform, but you have to turn off the
ISC server and use Sun's because we haven't bothered to deliver the
new options needed for ISC.")

Another reason why "co-existing" isn't a good answer is that for users
who want that, they can already do it *today*.  Just download the ISC
server and run it.  Having an integrated and supported answer is much
more work than just adding yet more packages to the system.

I think complaining is nice, and might even motivate someone to do
something, but it's not the equivalent of work, or anything like a
"plan."  Hence my comment: anyone can complain ... but having a plan
takes work.

Harely Race writes:
> Piotr Jasiukajtis wrote:
> 
> "Indeed. Solaris DHCP Server is much better then ISC dhcpd."
> 
> What makes it so much more superior than ISC's implementation?  Can it function as \
> a PXE server?

Of course.  That's how we use it ourselves for net-installing x86
systems.  I've used both, and I find Sun's easier to set up and learn
to use.  But I guess that's just me.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson@sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 35 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
networking-discuss@opensolaris.org


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]