Re: [homenet] Looking for a Homenet co-chair
> FWIW, I think there's further work after stub networks for HomeNet to do. We > now have Babel and Source-Specific routing, but I suspect that setting it up > will involve some innovation, and that ought to be documented. That would be RFC 9080. It's fully implemented in both hnetd and shncpd. -- Juliusz ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Looking for a Homenet co-chair
FWIW, I think there's further work after stub networks for HomeNet to do. We now have Babel and Source-Specific routing, but I suspect that setting it up will involve some innovation, and that ought to be documented. And we might be getting close to ready to talk about how to integrate the dnssd naming work into a HomeNet. On August 27, 2021 at 7:05:06 AM, Michael Richardson (m...@sandelman.ca) wrote: Michael Richardson wrote: >> progress the stub networks draft because I've been too busy doing >> dnssd work, but that would be an example. I'd really like to progress >> that draft /somewhere/, and it seems a /bit/ off-topic for dnssd. It >> could go in v6ops, but it's pretty off-topic for v6ops. Same with >> intarea. >> But of course the stub networks document isn't what Homenet set out to >> do. It's just a building block that might lead there. The original >> work of homenet doesn't seem to have caught on in the market, and I >> think it's because we didn't have an adoption strategy. Personally I >> think stub networks is a good bottom-up beginning to a strategy that >> could ultimately produce an adoptable version of what we originally >> tried to do. But again, only if people here want to pursue that. > I thought that you *wanted* to go to INTAREA with this document. I > agree that it's an important document. If we need to keep HOMENET open to do stub networks, then let's do that. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Looking for a Homenet co-chair
Michael Richardson wrote: >> progress the stub networks draft because I've been too busy doing >> dnssd work, but that would be an example. I'd really like to progress >> that draft /somewhere/, and it seems a /bit/ off-topic for dnssd. It >> could go in v6ops, but it's pretty off-topic for v6ops. Same with >> intarea. >> But of course the stub networks document isn't what Homenet set out to >> do. It's just a building block that might lead there. The original >> work of homenet doesn't seem to have caught on in the market, and I >> think it's because we didn't have an adoption strategy. Personally I >> think stub networks is a good bottom-up beginning to a strategy that >> could ultimately produce an adoptable version of what we originally >> tried to do. But again, only if people here want to pursue that. > I thought that you *wanted* to go to INTAREA with this document. I > agree that it's an important document. If we need to keep HOMENET open to do stub networks, then let's do that. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
