Re: DHCP server in base

>> M. Warner Losh <imp_at_bsdimp.com> wrote:

>: I agree but like Aleksandr said, almost 70% of dhcp code is already in
>: base so adding 1Mb of dhcpd code wouldn't be too much. I like the idea
>: to keep some parts in the ports tree and move out from the base.
>
> Yea.  I agree too.  Just because BIND was EOLd in 6 isn't a great
> argument against dhcp server.  Most of the code is there anyway, and
> it isn't evolving as fast as BIND.
>
> It would be very convenient to have this particular thing in the base,
> and we shouldn't be too dogmatic about never having any new 3rd party
> things in the base.  After all, we just added more compression
> utilities to the base, and nobody said a peep.  This is analogous: we
> have good opportunity to integrate into the system, and users benefit
> from that integration.

As a road-warrior consultant I really value having things like
bootpd, tftpd, bootparamd and similar software always there.
Many times I wished dhcpd was there, too.

Another typical use - FreeBSD makes a good small network router out
of the box (PPP, NAT, ipfw, WLAN AP, DNS are there, dhcpd - missing).

I am not sure about the whole "modularization" goal - I think
the relatively monolythic nature is one of the FreeBSD's merits.

For example, it's good to have NFSv4, Kerberos and required
userland daemons packaged in the base. I don't want to have 
those done separately in a modular way (although Heimdal
we have is older then what their current trunk is). 
We got stuck on connecting Linux boxes via NFSv4 to Solaris
and BSD because one of the userland modules in Linux was terribly
out of date and authenticating the user w/Kerberos was not possible. 

As we build a more complex networking landscape with VIMAGE and
friends I think that the benefits of better integration of dhcpd
in the base system (rc.d, rc.conf...) may outweigh its costs 
(maintenance, bloat, etc.).

//Marcin