On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:15:03PM -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I don't think it is likely to be a lot of work, though, compared to the
effort to standardize Babel which would include:
[mostly things that involve an exhausting amount of talking, but
do not require the invention of new
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 05:28:05PM -0500, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 24/03/2015 17:19, David Lamparter a écrit :
Before we lose this, let it be noted that we seemed to have arrived
at no for an answer to whether we want to deal with non-transitive
networks, *as part of this particular
Hi Homenet chairs list,
Before we lose this, let it be noted that we seemed to have arrived at
no for an answer to whether we want to deal with non-transitive
networks, *as part of this particular routing protocol discussion*.
If I'm misrepresenting the outcome from today's meeting, someone
Le 24/03/2015 17:19, David Lamparter a écrit :
Hi Homenet chairs list,
Before we lose this, let it be noted that we seemed to have arrived
at no for an answer to whether we want to deal with non-transitive
networks, *as part of this particular routing protocol discussion*.
If I'm
On 24.3.2015, at 16.15, Margaret Wasserman margaret...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that this is a complex feature that would require quite a bit of
work to get right. There would also be work involved in standardizing the
IS-IS autoconf and IS-IS source-specific routing extensions. In
At todays meeting, the claim was made (at least twice) that adding
dynamically computed metrics to IS-IS is just a feature. I strongly
disagree with this assessment -- it's an open research problem, and
a difficult one at that.
I don't think it is likely to be a lot of work, though,
As far
Next item on my list of incorrect claims having been made this morning --
lend me your ears.
Somebody mentioned at the mic that some mesh routing protocols do not work
well on ordinary wired links. While this statement is vague enough to be
correct, the implication that this applies to Babel is
On 24.3.2015, at 10.08, David Lamparter equi...@diac24.net wrote:
the DNCP draft contains 4 variants of bootstrap ceremonies, but the only
thing I can find about distrust is that Configured Distrust exists as
a state. Can you detail how that works? (And possibly add that detail
to the
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
My basic request was basically that everyone on homenet dogfood what
exists (hnetd, babel) to see all the real problems renumbering induces
on their
Evan,
If there were a solid specification
I'm a little confused about that. I have put a lot of care into RFC 6126,
and I've tried to make it as clear as possible. Looking at it with four
years' hindsight, there's little in it that I would write differently today.
It would be extremely
On 25/03/2015 08:47, JF Tremblay wrote:
On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
[...] Make-before-break
renumbering (a.k.a. planned renumbering) is preferable but we can't
rely on it. (I also try to never forget Fred Baker's observation that
Before we lose this, let it be noted that we seemed to have arrived at
no for an answer to whether we want to deal with non-transitive
networks, *as part of this particular routing protocol discussion*.
This is what the protocol comparison draft has to say on the subject:
We believe that
I saw this message go by today:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet/current/msg05073.html
where the author stated:
If there were a solid specification and second implementation of
babel, babel would win on the basis of functionality.
A) As for the first, babel is pretty fully
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 01:19:05AM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
It would be extremely helpful if you could take the time to explain to me
what it is exactly that you found confusing in RFC 6126.
My apologies for lack of clarity: I was not speaking for myself, but
reflecting the statements
In message
CADZyTkkyqTu5D2-Fxke33XUns4uOSV7zbsW=9unwrbv1gzk...@mail.gmail.com, Daniel Mig
ault writes:
Hi Juliusz,
From the discussion this morning, this is my understanding how how multiple
should be handled: DNS architecture does not allow one secondary with
multiple primaries. This
Hi,
I made the following comment at today's meeting. A comment I made earlier
about the naming delegation draft is that it makes the following assumptions:
- there is just one CPE;
- the hidden master is co-located with the CPE.
It was difficult to follow remotely, but I believe that two
Hi Juliusz,
From the discussion this morning, this is my understanding how how multiple
should be handled: DNS architecture does not allow one secondary with
multiple primaries. This means that if multiple CPE are used for a given
DNS(SEC) Homenet Zone, each of them must have their own set of
On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
[...] Make-before-break
renumbering (a.k.a. planned renumbering) is preferable but we can't
rely on it. (I also try to never forget Fred Baker's observation that
there is no such thing as renumbering: there
As I said at the microphone today, I think that the explanations of
how the prefix-assignment and naming proposals will handle renumbering
are convincing. I also agree that there is no real distinction between
renumbering and a change of ISP (as far as prefixes and addresses are
concerned, of
On 24.3.2015, at 14.00, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Warn users that renumbering is planned/has started.
(because long-living sessions will be affected, even in make-before-break)
I am not sure this is really useful - ‘red alert, ISP is about to renumber!’?
Dear all,
At todays meeting, the claim was made (at least twice) that adding
dynamically computed metrics to IS-IS is just a feature. I strongly
disagree with this assessment -- it's an open research problem, and
a difficult one at that.
Any interesting metric (packet loss, delay, etc.) will
Dear Brian:
I have unsubscribed from the homenet mailing list. In fact, all ietf
mailing lists. I realize, like multiple spy agencies, and the mafia,
that the only way to truly leave the ietf is feet first, but for the
next 6 months. I would rather get some coding done, because in my
world, it is
Juliusz,
I understand that this is a complex feature that would require quite a bit of
work to get right. There would also be work involved in standardizing the
IS-IS autoconf and IS-IS source-specific routing extensions. In addition, we
might want/need to standardize a mechanism for
23 matches
Mail list logo
