Re: [homenet] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Michael. Michael Richardson wrote on 02/12/2022 02:56: In re-editing I found that the section 7.1 is a bit vague about where the Notifies go. Ray Hunter please comment. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-22.html#name-securing-the-synchronizatio

Re: [homenet] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, I have an implementation of this specification. It's not open source today. But if it were to be published I'd be willing to discuss publishing the code as open source. (I am self-employed so there's no IPR issues in that). regards, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote on 01/11/2022 12:22:

Re: [homenet] naming drafts

Stephen Farrell wrote on 07/06/2021 21:32: Hi Michael, On 05/06/2021 19:46, Michael Richardson wrote: Well, I'd be happy to discuss with this them again, but they'd have to actually tell us what "DDNS" really is for them. Just to clarify: I don't think/claim DDNS is "better" than the

Re: [homenet] [dhcwg] WGLC started -- draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12

Hi Ted, thanks for the comment. I agree. Plus one more point. The ISP hosts the reverse zone. The ISP also controls any reverse zone to customer assignments, and is in control of any renumbering. The ISP may therefore choose to simply wipe any reverse zone content after renumbering occurs.

Re: [homenet] draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-08

Hi Daniel, I have a question both for this draft and our "own" Homenet draft Up until now we've been passing the specification of the DM * Reverse DM connections via separate configuration parameters: address/name, port number, and transport protocol. Should we instead be using a DNS URI

Re: [homenet] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-08.txt

Hi Daniel, Thanks for publishing this draft. I have a three comments/concerns. Firstly: "this option is also defined in [I-D.ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6]." I just want to clarify that you are going to provide a new option code, but with the identical semantics. I do think you need a separate code to

Re: [homenet] biggest L2 domain

Gert Doering wrote on 13/12/2019 18:26: Hi, On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 09:54:08AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: I thought that we wrote somewhere in RFC7368 that the Homenet router should collect as many ports as possible together into a single L2 zone. I can't find that text right now. Did

Re: [homenet] outsourcing architecture [meeting notes]

Hi Daniel, Here's my input where there wasn't time to provide at the mic in the meeting. Daniel Migault wrote on 19/11/2019 10:36: Hi, So my notes/comments regarding the feedbacks received are: * mentioning the work on axfr over tls No problem with referencing this and it's helpful

Re: [homenet] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09.txt

Dave Taht wrote on 23/10/2019 08:56: has anyone here had much chance to review this? Thanks for the prompt. From a pure Homenet perspective, it reinforces that L3 routing is the correct solution for segmenting networks where end nodes have different characteristics. e.g. battery powered or

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote on 20/09/2019 14:23: 1) DNCP allows an option of whether a network state TLV contains optional nested payload (HNCP) TLV's or not. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. RFC 7787 Section 7.2.2. A OK so you're saying this is already covered in (Section 4.4 of) 7787

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Thanks for your response. Juliusz Chroboczek wrote on 20/09/2019 12:40: 1) DNCP allows an option of whether a network state TLV contains optional nested payload (HNCP) TLV's or not. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. RFC 7787 Section 7.2.2. The Network-State TLV only contains the network

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote on 19/09/2019 01:02: The problem is, how’d the packet get so big that it was fragmented? HNCP relies on network-layer fragmentation: it uses UDP and has no application-layer mechanism for fragmenting large TLVs. See Section 4.2 and Appendix B.2 of RFC 7787. Agreed.

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Mark Andrews wrote on 18/09/2019 12:00: Question: As a simple mitigation, is there any way of manually signalling to the kernel that ALL UDP packets on port 8231 should assume an PMTU of 1280 octets? setsockopt(IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU=1); from RFC 3542 works provided the OS has implemented it.

[homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Hi, I've been experimenting with Homenet before looking at enhancing HNCP for extended naming functionality (the current implementation only covers resolver configuration and not name server configuration). During my testing I managed to break HNCP, so that it got stuck in a state where it

Re: [homenet] IPv6 & firewall config in a home net

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote on 06/09/2019 08:59: On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: IMHO Expected behavior. Many European data protection people consider an IP(v6) address to be privacy-sensitive personal data. That will likely mean regular renumbering of IA PD by ISP's as the norm

Re: [homenet] IPv6 & firewall config in a home net

Ted Lemon wrote on 05/09/2019 18:31: On Sep 2, 2019, at 1:47 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: Assuming that the prefix change is make-before-break (which we do not clearly know how to do on the WAN side, I think), then the web server should configure with the same rfc7212 IID, but a new prefix.

Re: [homenet] IPv6 & firewall config in a home net

mal.hub...@bt.com wrote on 02/09/2019 17:55: Hey, Mal here. IETF attendee since 2012 ;) I have a home networking question with respect to IPv6 standards, I’m hoping to use you as a sounding board first before I take it to v6ops. The scenario here is a home / soho network situation where

Re: [homenet] [EXT] securing zone transfer

Hi, Ted made a valid point about "running code" in this thread. So I've been experimenting with various configurations. My conclusions: 1) We definitely need to properly secure communication between the HNA and the DM for control traffic. This needs to be an explicit part of the draft. 2)

Re: [homenet] securing zone transfer

Michael Richardson wrote on 13/06/2019 03:25: Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Are you assuming here there's a central Homenet controller that presents > a web interface where the "house owner" can choose which names get > published? No, we are assuming that there are one or more

Re: [homenet] securing zone transfer

Inline. Long post. Juliusz Chroboczek wrote on 12/06/2019 04:03: Actually, it's fatal, because you can't get a certificate for "boombox.local" so you can't secure it that way. So you always have to use the FQDN. That sucks, of course, but the problem is completely unrelated to being published

Re: [homenet] [EXT] securing zone transfer

Thanks for the feedback. > first, the gateway does not know for sure which external NS are use by the secondary DNS service, Agreed. The draft needs to address how the service is boot-strapped and auto-configred. > second the IPs of the WAN port might not be the internet facing IPs and

Re: [homenet] primary / secondary configuration

Daniel Migault wrote on 07/06/2019 22:27: Hi, We are looking for a simple way to configure the primary / secondary DNS setting between the homenet and the outsourcing infrastructure. The exchange of these information is done over a secure channel - let say TLS. While we coudl re-define a

Re: [homenet] securing zone transfer

Ted Lemon wrote on 08/06/2019 05:50: On Jun 7, 2019, at 11:36 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: Can we use TLS for authorization, assuming that we have trusted certificates at both ends?  Perhaps this is more of a: did anyone implement this? How is trust

Re: [homenet] About Ted's naming architecture presentation and document

james woodyatt wrote: On Nov 16, 2016, at 17:31, Michael Richardson > wrote: But, do you agree that publishing your home lighting controller to the DNS is how you manage to control your lights from your phone when you are out of wifi

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

based on the actual chosen ULA in use, which is not easy to generate. Ray Hunter (v6ops) <mailto:v6...@globis.net> 14 May 2016 14:51 Ted Lemon wrote: If devices publish keys, then you can use those keys to make sure you are still talking to them. And the dnssec validation of local names

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

:45, "Ray Hunter (v6ops)" <v6...@globis.net <mailto:v6...@globis.net>> wrote: Ted Lemon <mailto:mel...@fugue.com> 12 May 2016 15:48 As long as the renumbering process is clean, there is no downside to renumbering, and no reason to be careful about

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Ted Lemon 12 May 2016 15:48 As long as the renumbering process is clean, there is no downside to renumbering, and no reason to be careful about which ULA you ultimately wind up with. So are you suggesting the Homenet (internal) namespace should be independent of

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Juliusz Chroboczek 12 May 2016 15:10 If I'm reading you correctly, Ray, you're promoting unstable naming. Not promoting. Looking at the consequences. If I have two routers called trurl and pirx in my network, then my printer will becalled

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Ted Lemon 11 May 2016 20:03 DNS update is pretty simple. Any problem with using that? Not with the update mechanism itself I think you may be slightly conclusing "authoritative" and "primary." There is no need to elect authoritative servers--just make them

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Juliusz Chroboczek 11 May 2016 18:29 Bonjour is (roughly) based on Appletalk AFAIK. I've got nothing against Appletalk Phase II, so if Bonjour was extended to provide an equivalent function to Appletalk Phase II Zone Information Protocol = ZIP then I'd

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Ted Lemon 11 May 2016 18:37 > I don't like the hybrid proxy model either. It promises the union of > the problems and intersection of the functionality. Proxying flies in > the face of the trend of smart devices and dumb networks. Very well

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

On 11 May 2016, at 15:01, Ray Hunter (v6ops) <v6...@globis.net <mailto:v6...@globis.net>> wrote: Tim Chown wrote: On 25 Apr 2016, at 03:39, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com <mailto:mel...@fugue.com>> wrote: On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <j..

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Tim Chown wrote: On 25 Apr 2016, at 03:39, Ted Lemon > wrote: On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek > wrote: > Juliusz, the problem is that existing home

Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for draft-barth-homenet-wifi-roaming-00.txt

Mikael Abrahamsson <mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se> 30 Nov 2015 08:33 On Fri, 27 Nov 2015, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: How would you "move a /64 around"? Well, the same way you would move a /128 around I guess. Not sure that's correct. When moving a /64 per host you have to p

Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for draft-barth-homenet-wifi-roaming-00.txt

Mikael Abrahamsson <mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se> 30 Nov 2015 08:33 On Fri, 27 Nov 2015, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: How would you "move a /64 around"? Well, the same way you would move a /128 around I guess. Not sure that's correct. When moving a /64 per host you have to p

Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for draft-barth-homenet-wifi-roaming-00.txt

Mikael Abrahamsson <mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se> 26 Nov 2015 16:15 On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: I have read this draft and find it interesting. The use of host routes would seem appealing to avoid 1) any need for stateful "home agent" and multiple forwardin

Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for draft-barth-homenet-wifi-roaming-00.txt

Alexandre Petrescu wrote: Hi, Using host-based routes in a homenet to support mobility (rather than Mobile IP) may make sense because the domain is relatively small. The draft could benefit from illustrating at least a simple topology, to understand what the author really means, because

Re: [homenet] WiFi handover [was: question: equal-cost multipath?]

Alexandru Petrescu 2 Sep 2015 11:31 Le 01/09/2015 18:06, Ray Hunter a écrit : inline Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 12/08/2015 14:20, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) a écrit : While I pay for it, I never use the millions of WiFi access points I can use here

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

Michael Thomas wrote: On 08/31/2015 04:42 AM, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: Juliusz (and others) have objected to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options because it appears to be tied to the ISP. Yet for reverse resolution, the ISP is an essential

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

STARK, BARBARA H 1 Sep 2015 12:23 and that is also not covered in DNS-SD AFAICS. As a potential end user of homenet (i.e., within my personal home network), I very much do *not* want any of my IoT devices, printers, or scanners to be publicly discoverable via DNS.

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

Erik Kline wrote: On 26 August 2015 at 15:41, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: Can we just go with whichever recommendations come out of dnssd? https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnssd/charter/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnssd/documents/ Could you

Re: [homenet] Stub networks

On 07 Mar 2015, at 16:54, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:44 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote: I think that you and Mikael expect that the ZigBee link will be designated as stub, while Brian, ever the pessimist, expects things to go

Re: [homenet] sorting out the right ipv6 addr to choose and name in a source specific world

Sent from my iThing On 23 Dec 2014, at 00:22, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 19/12/2014 04:07, Michael Richardson wrote: I am way behind on my mail (this thread) and will be away for the