Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:01:30 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Bill Moran <wmoran@iowna.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: FreeBSD & Ad Hoc Networking Message-ID: <3B4DE5FA.2DC98A1F@mindspring.com> References: <200107100332.UAA13663@usr01.primenet.com> <3B4B0856.A67F02FD@iowna.com> <3B4B3866.FBFF9A65@mindspring.com> <3B4B420C.1947DABE@iowna.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bill Moran wrote: > Personally, I don't consider win98 a reference point > by which to model OS design. You are free to hold that opinion. We are not talking OS design, however, we are talking about participation in a network, and what constitutes a "good network citizen". > When you say win98 and above do you include the NT > line (win2k)? Yes. All versions of Windows since Windows 98 have used the same strategy for establishing ad hoc networks. > With the _current_ IPv4 network, I don't see any > good reason for servers to use DHCP, and FreeBSD is > primarily a server OS, so why should it default > to DHCP? Because on a heterogeneous network, the DHCP controller is most likely to be an NT box, since Microsoft makes your network suck, unless it gets to supply the DHCP controller, or unless you are willing to change FreeBSD's implementation to interoperate with their Domain Controller system, and participate in Elections, etc.. If you can supply the schema and patches to the OpenLDAP and FreeBSD projects so that we can do this, I'm sure people would consider not installing NT DHCP servers... > > The "link.local" draft RFC for doing the > > IPv4 stateless autoconfiguration was coauthored by a > > Microsoft employee. > > I'm not familiar with the standards you reference > above, what's the RFC#? See the section at the bottom of the "Zero Configuration Networking (ZEROCONF)" working group page: http://ietf.org/html.charters/zeroconf-charter.html > > See the IETF "ZEROCONF" working group for more details: > > this stuff is going to be part of the standards soon. > > Possibly. But then again, IPv6 will change a number of the > rules as we know them. Which will be adopted and come into > widespread use first is a matter for fortune tellers. The U.S. has the stupid idea that NAT will solve all of the IPv4 address space problems, forever. Like GSM, expect the U.S. to be the absolute last to deploy IPv6. Expect it to take _years_. China has lodged an official diplomatic protest about the IPv4 address space allocations, already. The two U.S. industry segments that could have pushed IPv6 forward in the U.S. have not: (1) any cable or other private network plant provider (e.g. AT&T@Home, TCI, Cox Cable, etc.) could have pushed it onto their own network, and NAT'ed IPv4 to the rest of the non-IPv6 world. The barriers to them doing this have been adoption of IPv6 in Windows, as a technology installed on Windows boxes by default, and the terminal equipment ("Cable modem/router") additional costs that would result from having to put an IPv6<->IPv4 gateway there to route around Microsofts damage. AND (2) The Cellular phone network providers, who wish each phone to have an IP address (e.g. Ericson was quite adamant about this in several heated IETF discussions), so that they can be addressed to push content at the user. Note that this applies to pager networks, as well. So until the United States gets off its collective ass, I rather doubt you will be able to have FreeBSD hide from the ad hoc networking realities forever. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B4DE5FA.2DC98A1F>