Subject: RE: LLDP-MED and Phone BCP (Re: [Ecrit] New phonebcp draft wassubmitted)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:00:11 -0400

Thanks Henning. 

Yes, I also definitely believe implementation complexity, both in network 
admin and in server side, is a big difference.  The admin simplicity part 
is especially significant here.  Anything that adds extra coordination, 
extra dependancies, or opportunity for error of any kind, will very 
greatly reduce overall reliability of location delivery.  And the 
traceback process seems likely to be fragile also, adding to the admin 
complexity.  Plus add a yet-to-be-defined wiremap-to-DHCP dB interface as 
a variable ... 

I can definitely say that implementing LLDP-MED in the client side is 
quite low complexity. 

-- Peter

[email-masked]
26.06.06 16:32

        To:     "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
        cc:     "Henning Schulzrinne" <[email-masked]>, "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" 
<[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
        Subject:        RE: LLDP-MED and Phone BCP (Re: [Ecrit] New phonebcp draft wassubmitted)

In theory, yes. In practice, the DHCP server is often managed by different
entities than the L2 infrastructure. (This seems to be fairly common on
campuses.)  In our local environment, your approach would be extremely
difficult to implement, without a major network reorganization.

> For the enterprise environment, I would think you would use the DHCP
> relay option, which adds a circuit ID at the switch.  That would be a
> one step map (Circuit ID to location) at the DHCP server.  It's a two
> step configuration (have to assign the circuit ID on the switch, and
> build the circuitId to location map), but still seems to be pretty close
> to what you do with LLDP-MED.
>
> Brian

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit