Re: autoip config option?

[Jason Martens <me jasonmartens com>]

Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 10:53 +0000, Ben Roberts wrote:
>  
>
> > > As said also in AP and cabled networks it can make sense. A reasonable
> > > assumption is that we want AutoIP if there is no DHCP available. Marking
> > > this clearly with an additional icon should be sufficient to track down
> > > problems quickly.
> > >      
> > I still don't think this is a reasonable assumption.  I suspect that
> > for the majority of users the failure to obtain an address by DHCP is
> > an indication that networking setup has failed and not an indication
> > that an autoip network should be set up. I also think that the various
> > icon modifications are likely to confuse. Icons seem to be most useful
> > when they give a visual indication of a concept the user already
> > understands; I seriously doubt if many users understand the conceptual
> > distinction between an autoip network and a DHCP network. I guess an
> > icon is useful to users who understand this distinction and to
> > technical support when other users ring up...
> >    
>
> I would have to agree.  I have yet to see anyone ever use an autoIP
> network under any circumstances (except for hacking other people's
> laptops on the airplane).  When people want a network, they want to
> connect *to* something, and if they don't get an IP, they can't connect
> to their destination.
>  
I disagree.  I have used autoIP several times, and it is much more 
convenient for setting up an ad-hoc network then manually picking IPs 
for everyone.  And with the addition of DNS service discovery, this 
becomes even more useful.

I do agree however that autoIP is not what people want most of the time, 
and there should be some way to tell the user that they are not 
connected to the internet, but rather just to a local network.

Jason Martens