Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> On 11 Aug 2017, at 17:53, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Ted Lemon wrote: >> Source-specific routing, however, is an incomplete solution. Having >> chosen the correct route based on the source address, we still have the >> problem that one provider

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On Aug 11, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > The example that, in contrast to all other content, is when content is > zero-rated via 3G but not via WIFI. (generalized to any two uplinks) > I don't know the source address selection or source routing can deal

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon wrote: > Source-specific routing, however, is an incomplete solution. Having > chosen the correct route based on the source address, we still have the > problem that one provider connection may be better than another for > connecting to a particular

Re: [homenet] homenet has adopted draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming

On Aug 11, 2017, at 12:42 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > I have moved the doc to the adopted state. Ted/Daniel, you should be able to > upload a WG revision as your next rev. Great, thanks! ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org

[homenet] homenet has adopted draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming

I have moved the doc to the adopted state. Ted/Daniel, you should be able to upload a WG revision as your next rev. Barbara ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On Aug 11, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> This is a refrain I've heard from you, Juliusz and Markus, which I actually >> find a bit disturbing: the desire not to really solve the problem because >> it's >> not trivially easy. > > If I were in a bad mood, I'd say

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On Aug 11, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Can we please agree that this document has no business mandating > round-robining? The point of the text on round-robining is to avoid a situation where one provider's answers wind up being preferred over another provider's

Re: [homenet] The HOMENET WG has placed draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > Hi, > > On the principle of the WG agreeing to work on the problems as itemised in > the current headings in the table of contents, I support adoption, i.e., > it’s something homenet should work on, but it’s quite

Re: [homenet] The HOMENET WG has placed draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Hi, On the principle of the WG agreeing to work on the problems as itemised in the current headings in the table of contents, I support adoption, i.e., it’s something homenet should work on, but it’s quite possible that the draft when it moves to WGLC may look somewhat different. Someone

[homenet] Last Call: (Special Use Domain 'home.arpa.') to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the Home Networking WG (homenet) to consider the following document: - 'Special Use Domain 'home.arpa.'' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On Aug 11, 2017, at 9:09 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Because I'm not convinced the added implementation complexity is worth > it; so yeah, the last one I guess... This is a refrain I've heard from you, Juliusz and Markus, which I actually find a bit disturbing: the desire

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> From: Ted Lemon > Barbara, I seem to recall that you were enthusiastic about the work when it > was discussed in the meeting.   You're allowed to be one of the people who's > in favor of it, despite being chair.   Indeed, as > chair, you can just adopt > it by fiat if you want.   I actually

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

>>> DNS resolvers use round-robining. That's how the protocol works. >> Does that mean that dnsmasq breaks the protocol? >> >> http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=blob;f=src/forward.c;h=f22556a595673c7478706f17a22af2095e1068f8;hb=HEAD#l366 > What dnsmasq seems to be

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: > Why do you want it to be optional? What problem are you trying to solve? > Do you not know how to do it? Do you think it's resource intensive? Do you > think it reduces reliability more than not doing it? Because I'm not convinced the added implementation

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Why do you want it to be optional? What problem are you trying to solve? Do you not know how to do it? Do you think it's resource intensive? Do you think it reduces reliability more than not doing it? On Aug 11, 2017 8:55 AM, "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" wrote: > Ted Lemon

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: > How does the client know in which PvD a response is intended to exist. Well, in some cases normal source address selection rules are going to do the trick (i.e., the client picks the source address closest to the destination). In others it won't, and the

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

What dnsmasq seems to be doing is trying all servers at once. That would work too, if the pattern described in the document is followed. On Aug 11, 2017 8:41 AM, "Juliusz Chroboczek" wrote: > > - round-robin = bad (think why happy eyeballs came up for example of > why) > > >

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >> 1a. Router A exports over HNCP that it supports MPvD. Router B forwards >> all queries to router A, using a source address in the same prefix >> as the original request was received from. > >> 1b. Router A exports over HNCP that it supports

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

How does the client know in which moved a response is intended to exist. Also, what problem are you trying to solve here? What you described sounds like it's just an attempt at implementing mpvd on a homenet without requiring that all routers behave the same. On Aug 11, 2017 6:15 AM, "Toke

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On 11/08/2017 13:40, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> DNS resolvers use round-robining. That's how the protocol works. > > Does that mean that dnsmasq breaks the protocol? AFAICR, that's one of those niggly parts of the DNS protocol that is not strictly specified. Ray

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> - round-robin = bad (think why happy eyeballs came up for example of why) > DNS resolvers use round-robining. That's how the protocol works. Does that mean that dnsmasq breaks the protocol?

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> 1a. Router A exports over HNCP that it supports MPvD. Router B forwards > all queries to router A, using a source address in the same prefix > as the original request was received from. > 1b. Router A exports over HNCP that it supports MPvD. Router B uses > router A's address (which

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On 11/08/2017 12:59, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > In simple terms, I said "Why don't we try implementing bits of this > document before we adopt". I never said "We need seven interoperable > independent implementations before adoption". Juliusz, IMNSHO, that's still too high a bar. kind

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> Juliusz expressed opposition to adoption, but Ray and Michael said the > reasoning for objection was flawed (that Juliusz was setting the bar too > high and the procedural objections were not valid in the context of IETF > procedures). I probably expressed myself badly -- my objections were

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: > On Aug 10, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> Now, assuming that I am wrong and this is actually a serious issue that >> we need to solve (of which I am not opposed to being convinced), I think >> it would be feasible to come