This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: > Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> writes: > > > It occurs to me that people who want servers to have their network > > configurations automagically configured for them are just asking for > > trouble. If this was a problem with standard ifupdown for a server > > interface, I would agree with you. But autoconfiguration for > > network interfaces when you expect to be able to reliably address > > them remotely is, well, the only polite thing I can say is, odd. > > I have in the past had a server on a local area network where the > network administrators refused to assign a static IP address. But > they would set things up to promise to always give me the same IP > address every time by DHCP and not assign that address to anyone else. > But they wanted me to promise not to configure it as a static address > on my server, because if something should go wrong, it was important > that I be a good Net Citizen and not use an address which might have > been (accidentally) given to a different computer on the network. > > It worked just fine for years, and only ended when I bought a new > server which I put in a standard colocation shop. Have you looked at the package description that this bug is about? This is quite a bit more than DHCP client. While I would be unhappy about having machines I need access to have their addresses assigned by DHCP, it is trivial to configure the server side for static IP assignments, and it's also a decades old, robust technology. This is someone hanging their 'server' off of a tin can and string and being surprised it fell off the network. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature