On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Teemu Savolainen <tsavo.s...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'll leave it for those whose idea this was:-) > > If you insist. However, that assumes that they will write a document, > which isn't always a safe assumption. >
I am a big believer in running code and rough consensus. We seem to have both at the moment... As one of the inventors of the dhcpv4 to SLAAC naming technique (with evan hunt), I'm glad to hear this. However, someone else had come up with it independently and published it a few months prior to us, and we'd have to track that person down in order to write an ID. Simon Kelly took what we had in cerowrt, and improved it substantially, however there is still some stuff that is less than desirable, notably, the DNS TTL is presently set to 0 in the dnsmasq implementation, and I tend to think it should reflect the available lease time, or some larger number than 0, in order to do more effective caching. dnsmasq is now a full fledged replacement for radvd, and as it as insight into the lease time now, coming up with either a suggested minimum TTL or one based on the least seems like a good idea. Suggestions? Secondly, what ietf group would shepard the document? -- Dave Täht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
