On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 09:42, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
If homenet is going to support arbitrary self-configuring topologies,
and pervasive legacy IPv4 is required, we'd surely end up
On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
I'll remember that next time I login using the iPad to alter its config ;-)
IETF geeks are not the target end user! :)
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
Like wifi protected setup? Push button, pass phrase, near field coms and usb
stick, recently reduced to push button and pass phrase.
Not an ietf thing.
- Original Message -
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mel...@fugue.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 03:19 AM
To: Thomas Herbst
Cc:
+1
On Nov 15, 2011, at 12:49 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
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
Lorenzo == Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com writes:
Lorenzo 4. For security, I think we should pick an auth scheme and
Lorenzo stick to it, otherwise
Lorenzo it will just lead to fragmentation. Some pre-shared key
Lorenzo scheme might be adequate; I don't know much about
Brian == Brian E Carpenter Brian writes:
Brian The responsible parent, for example, who does not want to
Brian be fined for their kid's illegal downloads.
So, something that we could specify is some way to name the subnets,
and to communicate from the CPE router to the ISP about what is
Once HomeNet is figured out, a real subsequent challenge will be to address
how to translate any leftover configuration required for the end user. This
would be anything we couldn't figure out how to auto-configure. By translate
I mean translating any geek-speak config concepts into equivalent
Hi Acee,
On 11/14/2011 10:11 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
On Nov 14, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:25, Acee Lindem acee.lin...@ericsson.com
mailto:acee.lin...@ericsson.com wrote:
1. I think the OSPFv3 router ID should not be based on the MAC
Hi Michael,
On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Lorenzo == Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com writes:
Lorenzo 4. For security, I think we should pick an auth scheme and
Lorenzo stick to it, otherwise
Lorenzo it will just lead to fragmentation. Some
On Nov 16, 2011, at 2:49 AM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
{why am I top-quoting?}
I don't know.
So, I agree with you about translating terminology, or at least, picking
sufficiently unique (and multicultural) terminology such that the terms
can be used unambiguously.
The
On Nov 15, 2011, at 9:48 PM, Thomas Herbst ther...@silverspringnet.com wrote:
Like wifi protected setup? Push button, pass phrase, near field coms and usb
stick, recently reduced to push button and pass phrase.
Into which router do you type he pass phrase? How?
Joe == Joe Touch to...@isi.edu writes:
Joe - verizon home network (no USB on my home router)
Joe - iPhone and iPad (USB clients, but not hosts)
Joe - no PC (use the iCloud service)
Tell me again why you need homenet on such a simple network?
Joe So my iPad (and/or
On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
But afaik this isn't
the 'make IPv4 work better' WG. That means that the requirement
to not break IPv4 actually constrains the possible topologies
for IPv6.
This was definitely not the sense of the working
On Nov 16, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
What will happen if a user hangs an existing v4-only box bought in the
supermarket
off a new homenet-conforming box? I'm not saying we have to guarantee that
it works, but at least we need to understand the
Right now clients don't pick the best one--they just pick one pretty much at
random. But yes, if you have two DHCP servers providing different
information, you need to resolve that. We would have to write a spec to
handle this—it's not handled in the existing protocol.
We need to be
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Russ White ru...@riw.us wrote:
We need to be aware that not every network may be able to reach the
Internet... So you might need to have an address from every available
DHCP server, not just the best, one, or even a random, one.
Yes, this is part of a problem
We need to be aware that not every network may be able to reach the
Internet... So you might need to have an address from every available
DHCP server, not just the best, one, or even a random, one.
Yes, this is part of a problem space of which I have become keenly aware over
the course of
On Nov 16, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Erik Nordmark nordm...@cisco.com wrote:
The service call will be something like the internet is working fine, but
the printer is broken when the laptop uses dual-stack but the printer is
IPv4 only.
I uniformity (within the home) is better if we care about
do we need to?
in a self organizing unmanaged home; if we were to do a combination of a
network wide flooding mechanism and RAs. would we need DHCP in the network
at all?
I am not claiming that we do. However, the problem exists whether we do DHCP
in homenet or not.
yes, indeed.
Good points...Speaking of Bonjour, I haven't seen many references to support
for multicast (yet)...I'm assuming this is on the plate.
Randy
On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Nov 16, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Erik Nordmark nordm...@cisco.com wrote:
The service call will be something
On 16 Nov 2011, at 14:35, Randy Turner wrote:
Good points...Speaking of Bonjour, I haven't seen many references to support
for multicast (yet)...I'm assuming this is on the plate.
Yes, it was one of the topics of discussion at the interim, mostly in the
context of naming and service
On Nov 16, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
We need to be aware that not every network may be able to reach the
Internet... So you might need to have an address from every available
DHCP server, not just the best, one, or even a random, one.
Yes, this is part of a problem space of which
Fred,
We need to be aware that not every network may be able to reach the
Internet... So you might need to have an address from every available
DHCP server, not just the best, one, or even a random, one.
Yes, this is part of a problem space of which I have become keenly aware
over the
Was the intent of naming and discovery to try and reuse the zeroconf/mdns stuff
or something new?
Thanks!
Randy
Original message
Subject: Re: [homenet] pervasive v4
From: Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk
To: Randy Turner rtur...@amalfisystems.com
CC: homenet@ietf.org
I don't much care whose charter it's in. I do think that if we have an idea
that an ISP will allocate an IA_PD to a directly attached router and that
router will then, in some way, sub-allocate subnet prefixes to subnets in the
home, then there is a case in which there are multiple ISPs that
On Nov 16, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
If we do it another way, whether ZOSPF's or some other way, we have the same
problem in the sense that there will be multiple sources of subnet prefixes.
Yes. This becomes an even uglier problem as you progress into the network,
26 matches
Mail list logo
