Subject: Re: ASCII text message option (option 56)

From: Tony McAuley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 15:58:08 -0400

The point I was trying to make was that functions that interface
with the user (not just configuring the node) should be part of a
separate "user registration" protocol. I agree that "user registration"
should encompass both commercial cellular or cable networks
authenticating a user with the help of AAA and a private (10.X) network
just saying "hello." I did not mean to imply that all networks should
authenticate users and use AAA.

Appreciate your comments?

Thanks
 Tony

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anthony J. McAuley                     email:
[email-masked]
MCC 1C235B, Telcordia Technologies                    phone: +1 973 829
4698
445 South Street, Morristown, NJ 07960                  fax: +1 973 829
5888
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: ASCII text message option (option 56)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:51:25 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
To: DHCPv4 discussion list <[email-masked]>
CC: DHCPv4 discussion list <[email-masked]>

> I don't understand your point about class of service:  DHCP really
doesn't
> support that functionality in the way I understand it (e.g., delay,
packet
> loss, and bandwidth characteristics.)

I think he means class in the sense of ISC DHCP classes and allocation
pools, not in the sense of different levels of service implemented in
IP.   It's a very common application for people to set up a net 10
subnet on each wire and a routeable subnet on each wire and give you a
net 10 address if you haven't registered, but a routable address if
you have.

It makes perfect sense to me that Telcordia isn't very interested in
this, and that you aren't either, but I definitely wouldn't describe
this as an obscure application with limited applicability.   Please,
folks, try to think of other peoples' requirements as well as your
own... :'}

                               _MelloN_

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:13:57 -0700

> separate "user registration" protocol.

Stuart is proposing a very simple, quick solution with immediate
applications, leveraging existing protocols to produce a better user
interface.   Several large DHCP users can see applications for it.
So I think it's useful to proceed with it, unless you can come up with
a concrete reason not to.

That you have a specific solution to a specific problem using a new
protocol is not a reason not to proceed with this solution.  Nor is
this solution a reason not to proceed with what you are doing.  Both
are good.  There's no reason that they should be considered mutually
exclusive.   Unless you have one that you haven't stated yet!   :')

			       _MelloN_