I checked the draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-00. I think the proposal
doesn't meet expectations of users, with regard of protocol convergence. The
default timers are far too conservative. First reconfig on OSPF router in my
hands is adjust timers on high speed interfaces to hello=1 and dead=4
Op 8 nov. 2012, om 03:03 heeft Ted Lemon het volgende geschreven:
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 5:33 PM, "Ole Troan (otroan)" wrote:
>> Disagree. Hierarchical or flat PD (with relays) don't work for multihomed
>> sites, have problems with arbitrary topplogies etc.
>
> You said this before, but you did
On Nov 7, 2012, at 5:33 PM, "Ole Troan (otroan)" wrote:
> Disagree. Hierarchical or flat PD (with relays) don't work for multihomed
> sites, have problems with arbitrary topplogies etc.
You said this before, but you didn't describe any arbitrary topology in which
PD wouldn't work. Could you
On 7 Nov 2012, at 14:50, "Teco Boot" wrote:
> This should be in the homenet-arch, I think.
>
> It sounds so obvious to me, that I described this in a short text in BRDP:
> A Router should request a prefix for attached subnetworks, with
> DHCP-PD [RFC3633], where there is at that moment no
On Nov 7, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Daniel Migault
mailto:mglt.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Use a simple-minded http-based
injection protocol for DNS data that the CPE can use (we have several
of those deployed, although none is an IETF protocol).
If I understand correctly, you use an http-base protocol to
Op 7 nov. 2012, om 23:33 heeft Ole Troan (otroan) het volgende geschreven:
>
>
> On 7 Nov 2012, at 14:50, "Teco Boot" wrote:
>
>> This should be in the homenet-arch, I think.
>>
>> It sounds so obvious to me, that I described this in a short text in BRDP:
>> A Router should request a prefix
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 05:33:45PM -0500, Daniel Migault wrote:
> The architecture document recommends not to outsource everything in a
> server outside the homenet.
Well, yes, but note also that it says that you want only one name
space. This requirement is _certainly_ going to be violated in th
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for your comments, we are considering them for the next version.
I am answering in the text.
Mostly, I am worried that this proposal is a cure worse than the
> disease. I've read the draft several times, and I just don't get why
> it isn't better to put all this DNS data ou
On 7/11/2012, at 12:32 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Andrew McGregor wrote:
>> But that's single-delegating-router, not recursive.
>
> What is a "recursive delegating router," and why do you want one?
>
In general, I don't think you do.
A recursive delegating router is
Out of order:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 05:46:20PM +, Griffiths, Chris wrote:
> As an operator who is deploying
> home network platforms to millions of customers today, I politely
> disagree that this problem is nearly solved today in shipping
> products, but could be solved with existing platf
Op 7 nov. 2012, om 19:29 heeft Simon Kelley het volgende geschreven:
> On 07/11/12 18:21, David Lamparter wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 06:03:52PM +, Simon Kelley wrote:
>>> On 07/11/12 15:46, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>>
I think the disconnect here is that people are thinking the routers
>
Op 7 nov. 2012, om 16:59 heeft Ole Trøan het volgende geschreven:
> Ted,
>
> this has been proposed a few times. the problems that I see with it are:
> - in an arbitrary topology how do you decide which interfaces you are a
> client on and which interfaces you relay on
> - how do you handle the
This should be in the homenet-arch, I think.
It sounds so obvious to me, that I described this in a short text in BRDP:
A Router should request a prefix for attached subnetworks, with
DHCP-PD [RFC3633], where there is at that moment no on-link prefix
for a selected Border Router.
I could
Op 7 nov. 2012, om 16:39 heeft Dan York het volgende geschreven:
> Teco,
>
> I am participating in IETF 85 remotely and Lee Howard went to the mic in
> today's session to relay this question (thanks, Lee!). However, I did not
> hear any answer. My question is:
>
> Has any security analys
On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:00 PM, David Lamparter wrote:
> As I've said in my other mail, you end up going back to some election
> mechanism, and from there it's easier to just stick with OSPFv3 (and
> apply the nicer solutions provided by that across all areas) instead of
> creating a new protocol.
Ju
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 07:54:09PM +0100, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 7:21 PM, David Lamparter wrote:=
> > This really falls apart when I'm using 2 ISPs with 2 exit routers.
> > a-k-a, "Where's up?
>
> Why does it fail? The system I described will wind up relaying to both
> delegatin
On Nov 7, 2012, at 7:52 PM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
> Assuming that routers in the homenet will likely be
> using similar code (both those that show up on the edge and those which
> are intermediate ones), other router functions may be automated, including
> what mode of operation the router takes
On Nov 7, 2012, at 7:21 PM, David Lamparter wrote:=
> This really falls apart when I'm using 2 ISPs with 2 exit routers.
> a-k-a, "Where's up?
Why does it fail? The system I described will wind up relaying to both
delegating routers.
___
homenet mai
On 2012-11-07 1:43 PM, "Ted Lemon" wrote:
>On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Victor Kuarsingh
>wrote:
>> I am not sure I would agree that getting a /64 would inherently mean a
>> router knows is an intermediate router. There are potential scenarios
>> where an edge router may get a /64 and be the I
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 06:29:54PM +, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 07/11/12 18:21, David Lamparter wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 06:03:52PM +, Simon Kelley wrote:
> >> On 07/11/12 15:46, Ted Lemon wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think the disconnect here is that people are thinking the routers
> >>> t
On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
> I am not sure I would agree that getting a /64 would inherently mean a
> router knows is an intermediate router. There are potential scenarios
> where an edge router may get a /64 and be the ISP edge router (not the
> best case scenario, but p
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, David Lamparter wrote:
This really falls apart when I'm using 2 ISPs with 2 exit routers.
a-k-a, "Where's up?"
I believe source based routing is needed somewhere.
Either it's done between the ISP routers and that's it, or we expand the
standards so all routers in the home
On 07/11/12 18:21, David Lamparter wrote:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 06:03:52PM +, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 07/11/12 15:46, Ted Lemon wrote:
I think the disconnect here is that people are thinking the routers
to which prefixes are delegated need to themselves be delegating
routers, but this is
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 06:03:52PM +, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 07/11/12 15:46, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> > I think the disconnect here is that people are thinking the routers
> > to which prefixes are delegated need to themselves be delegating
> > routers, but this is incorrect. What they need to
Ted,
>> the OSPF based prefix assignment handle all of these, "out of the starting
>> blocks".
>
> I'm under the impression that a number of issues you mentioned as solved by
> OSPF and not solved by PD are actually not solved by OSPF. To respond
> individually:
which ones?
>> - in an arbi
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Andrew McGregor wrote:
But that's single-delegating-router, not recursive. The problem with
recursive is figuring out what prefix length a sub-delegating router is
going to ask for from its upstream. For a single-delegating-router
setup, you just ask for either a bunch of
On 07/11/12 15:46, Ted Lemon wrote:
I think the disconnect here is that people are thinking the routers
to which prefixes are delegated need to themselves be delegating
routers, but this is incorrect. What they need to do is _relay_
prefix delegation requests to the delegating router from whic
> Intermediate routers that get /64 prefixes (which is how they know they
>are intermediate routers!)
I am not sure I would agree that getting a /64 would inherently mean a
router knows is an intermediate router. There are potential scenarios
where an edge router may get a /64 and be the ISP edg
On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> While I was delighted to notice that
> draft-mglt-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-01 had been modified in
> response to previous suggestions, such that it removed some of the
> more controversial parts of its predecessor, the core remark I
On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> What is a "recursive delegating router," and why do you want one?
So just in case this is a simple misunderstanding and not a new protocol
proposal, what I said in my earlier message is that you don't need any sort of
recursive setup. The request
On Nov 7, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Andrew McGregor wrote:
> But that's single-delegating-router, not recursive.
What is a "recursive delegating router," and why do you want one?
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
Dear colleagues,
While I was delighted to notice that
draft-mglt-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-01 had been modified in
response to previous suggestions, such that it removed some of the
more controversial parts of its predecessor, the core remark I made
about the -00 is still true: I think i
On 7/11/2012, at 11:20 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Andrew McGregor wrote:
>> Recursive PD seems to inherently need some administrative input. BTW, our
>> switch implementation can do either.
>
> I don't see what admin input it requires. The CPE edge router knows it'
On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Ole Trøan wrote:
> the OSPF based prefix assignment handle all of these, "out of the starting
> blocks".
I'm under the impression that a number of issues you mentioned as solved by
OSPF and not solved by PD are actually not solved by OSPF. To respond
individually
If the 6204 CPE router is one of GW1/GW2 (lets say GW1), then it won't
be participating in the routing protocol and prefix distribution system,
so the host that is behind R won't get an address from GW1, only GW2.
That means that we only have to worry about hosts on the link (call it
H2) that has
On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Andrew McGregor wrote:
> Recursive PD seems to inherently need some administrative input. BTW, our
> switch implementation can do either.
I don't see what admin input it requires. The CPE edge router knows it's got
a delegation, and signals to adjacent routers th
Ted,
this has been proposed a few times. the problems that I see with it are:
- in an arbitrary topology how do you decide which interfaces you are a client
on and which interfaces you relay on
- how do you handle the case where multiple routers try to assign a prefix to a
link
- how do you disc
Hi All,
I support Ray position.
Maybe this drafts solves some situation but I believe it might bring
more problems than solutions.
regards,
Alejandro,
On 10/3/12, Ray Hunter wrote:
> I have read the draft and don't see how it advances Homenet.
>
> IMHO If an MSP wants to deploy some tunnel
Nice. Yes, that's a reasonable way to do that.
Recursive PD seems to inherently need some administrative input. BTW, our
switch implementation can do either.
Andrew
On 7/11/2012, at 10:51 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Clarifying my remarks at the mic...
>
> Using PD in a home network isn't hard
Ted,
this has been proposed a few times. the problems that I see with it are:
- in an arbitrary topology how do you decide which interfaces you are a client
on and which interfaces you relay on
- how do you handle the case where multiple routers try to assign a prefix to
a link
- how do you d
On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> draft-baker-homenet-prefix-assignment-01 has more details. Read it before
> you flame me.
Oh. Yay! I don't have to write a draft. Thanks, Ralph! (And thanks,
Fred!)
___
homenet mailing list
ho
On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:46 AM 11/7/12, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I don't have a particular preference for DHCP-PD over OSPF in homenets, but I
> just wanted to quickly contradict what's been said by several people at the
> mic: that figuring out what prefix to delegate is hard. It's not hard,
> actua
Clarifying my remarks at the mic...
Using PD in a home network isn't hard. Use a single delegating router; most
obvious choice is the device that received the prefix from the external source.
Every other router acts as a requesting router, and asks for a single /64 for
each of its interfaces f
I don't have a particular preference for DHCP-PD over OSPF in homenets, but I
just wanted to quickly contradict what's been said by several people at the
mic: that figuring out what prefix to delegate is hard. It's not hard,
actually—it's dead easy. The reason folks think it's hard is becaus
Teco,
I am participating in IETF 85 remotely and Lee Howard went to the mic in
today's session to relay this question (thanks, Lee!). However, I did not hear
any answer. My question is:
Has any security analysis been done on the approach suggested in
draft-boot-homenet-brdp? Is any secur
On 7 Nov 2012, at 14:36, Mark Townsley wrote:
> IETF 85
> Homenet Working Group
> 7th November 2012
>
> 09:00 - 09:10 Note Well, Jabber Relay, Note taker(s)
>
> 09:10 - 09:25 Homenet Architecture Update
>
>
The presentations that me, Markus, and Lorenzo are soon doing are available at
http://arkko.com/ietf/homenet/ietf85_homenet_ospf.pdf
http://arkko.com/ietf/homenet/ietf85_homenet_source_routing.pdf
(not available on the proceedings page yet)
Jari
___
I think that draft-kline-default-perimeter is good, and I'd like to see
it become a WG document.
--
Michael Richardson
-on the road-
pgpzklRChN3sI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailma
IETF 85
Homenet Working Group
7th November 2012
09:00 - 09:10 Note Well, Jabber Relay, Note taker(s)
09:10 - 09:25 Homenet Architecture Update
draft-chown-homenet-arch-06 (Tim Chown - 15m)
Assuming I made no bugs in the reordering:
IETF 85
Homenet Working Group
7th November 2012
09:00 - 09:10 Note Well, Jabber Relay, Note taker(s)
09:10 - 09:25 Homenet Architecture Update
draft-chow
50 matches
Mail list logo
