Mark and I would appreciate advance volunteers for the rôles of Jabber Relay
and Note Taker(s) for tomorrow's WG session. Time is short during the session
and we'd rather avoid that awkward silence as everyone tries to avoid catching
our eye if we have to ask for volunteers during the session
Hi All,
Please count on me as note taker, I would rather if someone else is
also taking notes just in case I miss something since my native
language is not English.
Thanks,
Alejandro,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk wrote:
Mark and I would appreciate
BTW, the tool looks nice, I wonder if two people using it at the same
time does not cause confusion during typing. Tomorrow I'll let you
know.
Alejandro,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk wrote:
Mark and I would appreciate advance volunteers for the rôles of
On 14 Nov 2011, at 18:48, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
Hi All,
Please count on me as note taker, I would rather if someone else is
also taking notes just in case I miss something since my native
language is not English.
Thanks,
Alejandro,
Thank you Alejandro - that's much appreciated.
Guillaume == Guillaume Habault guillaume.haba...@gmail.com writes:
Guillaume the host select the appropriate address, the routing
Guillaume protocol may route the
Guillaume message to the wrong Customer Edge Router (especially if
Guillaume we are in the case
Guillaume where
Maybe I am missing something basic, but there seems to be a bit of a
disconnect on our assumption about what we need to have in in-home rotuers.
On the one hand, earlier discussion emphasized that we need to use
protocols and implementations that are well tested, robust, and simple
to use.
On
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) pthub...@cisco.com wrote:
Michael:
If you want your PAN network to be reachable from the rest of the world,
you still need some mobility solution.
For instance you could use NEMO. Get a PAN delegated from your home
network and
All of the meeting materials are visible at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/82/materials.html
Unfortunately the meeting agenda page on the Tools website is not updated in
real-time as materials are uploaded so is out of date.
Ray
___
homenet
Apologies if ther's already a public comment thread on this; I couldn't
find it. Please feel free to hand me a cluepon.
1. I think the OSPFv3 router ID should not be based on the MAC address
because that will encourage people to assume it's unique most of the
time. I think we should just make it
There have been various discussion in PHL about spreading a secret among
devices so they can authenticate each other.
A super cool idea is a specifically formatted file on a USB drive,
inserted into each system in turn. While we might be pretty sure
the USB drive (and file system and connector,
On 11/14/11 5:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If homenet is going to support arbitrary self-configuring topologies,
and pervasive legacy IPv4 is required, we'd surely end up recommending
NAT444-within-the-home as the only remotely practicable approach.
But any such approach would bring in many
On Nov 15, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
I'd like to suggest that the file format is in scope for the security
work, and would be willing to document such a thing. (I actually think
the KEYPROV work can be readily adapted)
I definitely support this proposal.
Brian Carpenter raised the point at the mic that we have to pay
attention to privacy when it comes to the subnet-id. We shouldn't make
it possible for members of the household to spy on each other.
My understanding of the purpose of RFC4941 privacy extensions is to make
is hard for an
On 11/14/2011 5:45 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
There have been various discussion in PHL about spreading a secret among
devices so they can authenticate each other.
A super cool idea is a specifically formatted file on a USB drive,
inserted into each system in turn. While we might be
Fred,
The mic line was too long to bring this up:
You suggest using RFC 3633. How about RFC 2894 (Router renumbering) too?
Typo: the draft actually cites RFC 3363, which is not what you intended...
--
Regards
Brian Carpenter
___
homenet mailing
On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
Doesn't that assume the device has a USB connector and can mount a stick as a
drive? While that's common on PCs, it's not on home router boxes AFAICT. Many
have no USB at all.
That's why mcr suggested that we not talk about what
Dear colleagues:
Could you elaborate about the security services and deployment
scenario(s) you wish to facilitate, for the benefit of those not at
IETF-82 who subscribe to the mailing list? In other words, what is the
problem one tries and solve here?
Best regards, Rene
On 14/11/2011 9:45 PM,
On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:44 AM 11/15/11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Fred,
The mic line was too long to bring this up:
You suggest using RFC 3633. How about RFC 2894 (Router renumbering) too?
What device controls the use of RFC 2894? RFC 3633 triggers assignment from
the routers that
On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
The mic line was too long to bring this up:
You suggest using RFC 3633. How about RFC 2894 (Router renumbering) too?
Typo: the draft actually cites RFC 3363, which is not what you intended...
Ditto on the mic
On 2011-11-15 16:04, Erik Nordmark wrote:
On 11/14/11 6:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes, but then we're extending v4 and expecting homenets to run
(presumably) RIP.
Why RIP? Same protocol between the home routers as we will pick for
routing IPv6 in the home.
Well, my understanding is
On Nov 15, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Ole Troan o...@cisco.com wrote:
- how do you discovery the DHCP server? do you require a hard-wired upstream
port for this to work?
Multicast will reach the DHCP server. Otherwise yes, the hard-wired upstream
port allows this to work.
- what do you do with
plugging things into things seems like a rather short-sightt requirement
for a relationship.
joel
On 11/15/11 12:13 , Stephen [kiwin] Palm wrote:
My phone cannot mount usb devices. Have nio interest to remove the sdcard
---
Stephen [kiwin] Palm Ph.D. W:
On 15 Nov 2011, at 11:20 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-11-15 16:03, Tim Chown wrote:
So at the moment all the arch text says on privacy is:
Privacy considerations
There are no specific privacy concerns for this text. It should
be noted that most ISPs are expected to offer
You miss the point: while phones certainly do have usb device capability -
today they are not have host and today they do not accept the A connector - so
they cannot accept a standard usb thumb drive - and market forces will keep it
that way.
---
Stephen [kiwin] Palm Ph.D.
Agreed. Could be wireless or nfc. The file format won't help much if there are
multiple ways it might (or might not) be transfered
---
Stephen [kiwin] Palm Ph.D. W: http://www.kiwin.com
Senior Technical Director T: +1-949-926-PALM
On 11/14/2011 8:24 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Nov 15, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Stephen [kiwin] Palmp...@broadcom.com wrote:
My phone cannot mount usb devices. Have nio interest to remove the sdcard
Your phone almost certainly has a USB interface, so actually it's one of the
easier devices to
On Nov 15, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Stephen [kiwin] Palm p...@broadcom.com wrote:
You miss the point: while phones certainly do have usb device capability -
today they are not have host and today they do not accept the A connector -
so they cannot accept a standard usb thumb drive - and market
On Nov 15, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
Phones are USB clients, not hosts - I don't think a client is required to
supply power.
Right, which means you have to plug it into a USB host device. What's your
point?
___
homenet
On 11/14/2011 9:16 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Nov 15, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Stephen [kiwin] Palmp...@broadcom.com wrote:
You miss the point: while phones certainly do have usb device capability -
today they are not have host and today they do not accept the A connector - so
they cannot accept a
On 11/14/2011 9:16 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Nov 15, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Stephen [kiwin] Palmp...@broadcom.com wrote:
You miss the point: while phones certainly do have usb device capability -
today they are not have host and today they do not accept the A connector - so
they cannot accept a
On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Stephen [kiwin] PALM p...@broadcom.com wrote:
How the devices connect is an essential part of the user interaction.
If we ask users or manufacturers to do something unnatural - they won't
Oh yes, we are in violent agreement on this point!
On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Rene Struik rstruik@gmail.com wrote:
Could you elaborate about the security services and deployment
scenario(s) you wish to facilitate, for the benefit of those not at
IETF-82 who subscribe to the mailing list?
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:04, Erik Nordmark nordm...@cisco.com wrote:
On 11/14/11 6:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes, but then we're extending v4 and expecting homenets to run
(presumably) RIP.
Why RIP? Same protocol between the home routers as we will pick for
routing IPv6 in the
On 11/14/2011 9:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
...
I think we're thinking the phone is the router (ala tethering). In that
case, there needs to be a way to plug the USB stick into the phone,
which can't happen (since the phone draws power off the USB, rather than
delivering it). If the USB were
On 11/15/11 13:49 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:04, Erik Nordmark nordm...@cisco.com
mailto:nordm...@cisco.com wrote:
On 11/14/11 6:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes, but then we're extending v4 and expecting homenets to run
(presumably) RIP.
The BRDP proposal I made for Autoconf (ad hoc networks) has some concepts that
applies to Homenet also. For example, configuration of unneeded prefixes should
be prevented. BRDP does so by checking already RA advertised prefixes with
advertised ISP prefix blocks:
On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Howard, Lee lee.how...@twcable.com wrote:
How do we explain to the typical home user what a router is, how to decide
whether a given thing is one, and how to (in all cases) get the Magic Key
onto it? In other words, when you say are intended, who is doing the
And if the user plugs and plays this:
WAN
|
[NAT44]
|
---
| |
[NAT44] [NAT44]
| |
---
what happens? Please script the help desk call.
Brian
On 2011-11-15 18:58, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 11/15/11 13:49
On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
the consumer routinely ends up with double nats today, that's hardly
ideal, but it works for the most part. it doesn't seem likely to get
better esp as it involves the support of legacy devices.
This is sort of true, although
On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
Hans from D-Link suggests that another option is simply to bridge IPv4
packets and route IPv6 packets.
If this were part of the homenet requirements, I would be pretty happy with
that. We'd need to deal with the case
On 11/14/2011 10:15 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Joe Touchto...@isi.edu wrote:
Not iPhones ;-)
iPhones have USB interfaces.
iPhones are (or can be) routers.
iPhones have no microSD.
iPhones have a USB port that does not supply power.
Yes, bluetooth might be a way
In message 4ec205b5.9090...@isi.edu, Joe Touch writes:
On 11/14/2011 10:15 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Joe Touchto...@isi.edu wrote:
Not iPhones ;-)
iPhones have USB interfaces.
iPhones are (or can be) routers.
iPhones have no microSD.
iPhones have a
On 11/15/11 14:14 , Ted Lemon wrote:
On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
A decade and a half worth of bluetooth security associations
including really bad ones says otherwise.
Yes, and the reason it works is because for most devices, there is no
security,
Homenet admin?
Randy
Original message
Subject: Re: [homenet] privacy vs subnet-id
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
To: Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
CC: homenet@ietf.org Group homenet@ietf.org
On 2011-11-15 16:03, Tim Chown wrote:
So at the moment all
On Nov 15, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
iPhones are (or can be) routers.
iPhones have no microSD.
iPhones have a USB port that does not supply power.
Right, we already covered this. You plug them into a USB host device. If you
believe this is impractical, okay, but you
I believe less then 50% home routers have a USB port.
Sincerely,
Hans
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 11/14/2011 5:45 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
There have been various discussion in PHL about spreading a secret among
devices so they can authenticate
The responsible parent, for example, who does not want to
be fined for their kid's illegal downloads.
Regards
Brian
On 2011-11-15 19:54, Randy Turner wrote:
Homenet admin?
Randy
Original message
Subject: Re: [homenet] privacy vs subnet-id
From: Brian E Carpenter
47 matches
Mail list logo
