On 09/11/2012 7:56 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
(and that's why RPL isn't on the table at homenet)
Why not? Again, the sort of networks which would use RPL (LLNs) are
referred to in the charter.
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https:
On 11/9/12 3:21 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
"Michael" == Michael Thomas writes:
>> An ISP that gives out a single /64 is broken. As long as we have
>> a way to indicate "out of /64s" (because that could happen, even
>> if you are given a /48, and have some pathology...), then
> "Michael" == Michael Thomas writes:
>> An ISP that gives out a single /64 is broken. As long as we have
>> a way to indicate "out of /64s" (because that could happen, even
>> if you are given a /48, and have some pathology...), then we are
>> good.
Michael> Does that a
> "Teco" == Teco Boot writes:
Mattia> So what happens if the "lightswitch guys" want to plug-in a
Mattia> router, which they have to, as they can't bridge, but
Mattia> there's only one exit router from one ISP which is managed
Mattia> and gets a /64 only? SLAAC relay? I think
On 11/08/2012 07:07 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Howard, Lee wrote:
I think we should aim higher do what's best in the long run, and then CPE
manufacturers will adapt. Yes, these new CPEs might be USD5-10 more than
current generation, initially, but as these requirements
> "Andrew" == Andrew McGregor writes:
Andrew> This whole thread is making me think that specifying that we
Andrew> use either babel (with attention to getting it documented
Andrew> properly) or one of the OSPFv4 MANET extensions, in the case
Andrew> where we have only a /64 an
> I note that the Apple Airport Utility pops up warnings about various
> errors, some of which relate to sub-optimal network configuration,
> rather than misconfiguration. In particular, they warn you if you try
> to use double NAT.
it seems to me that we ought to ask Apple^WStuart how these wa
On 11/08/2012 10:58 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
An ISP that gives out a single /64 is broken. As long as we have a way
to indicate "out of /64s" (because that could happen, even if you are
given a /48, and have some pathology...), then we are good.
Does that apply to my Android phone too?
M
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Teco Boot wrote:
> Yes, it is More Adhoc NETwork and called Homenet. You could be surprised how
> well MANET protocols work in homenets. This is not my point.
>
> Wireless links need per neighbor link costs, a requirement for the Homenet
> routing protocol:
>T
Yes, it is More Adhoc NETwork and called Homenet. You could be surprised how
well MANET protocols work in homenets. This is not my point.
Wireless links need per neighbor link costs, a requirement for the Homenet
routing protocol:
The inclusion of the PHY layer
characteristics including ba
Home Wireless Routing != MANET
Acee
On Nov 9, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
> So this disqualifies OSPFv3 with DR? Support for wireless is
> a main reason to route in the homenet. This brings us to P2MP
> or in the MANET arena.
>
> There is a lot of code out there gathering link metri
So this disqualifies OSPFv3 with DR? Support for wireless is
a main reason to route in the homenet. This brings us to P2MP
or in the MANET arena.
There is a lot of code out there gathering link metrics for
dynamic links. MANET wg is working on a std track protocol for
it, called DLEP. This is f
Op 9 nov. 2012, om 09:00 heeft Mattia Rossi het volgende geschreven:
> Am 08.11.2012 20:04, schrieb Michael Richardson:
>>> "Mattia" == Mattia Rossi writes:
>> >> In a lot of these conversations, the "lightswitch guys" (as
>> >> someone called the LLN proponents) seem to get forgotte
Sent from Hans' iPad2
On Nov 9, 2012, at 4:20 PM, "Mattia Rossi"
wrote:
> Am 08.11.2012 21:03, schrieb Hans Liu:
>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
>>> On 8 Nov 2012, at 14:28, Ted Lemon wrote:
Sure, but "log a system management error" is not something that a home
>>
Am 08.11.2012 21:03, schrieb Hans Liu:
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 8 Nov 2012, at 14:28, Ted Lemon wrote:
Sure, but "log a system management error" is not something that a home router vendor can
meaningfully implement, unless it puts a speaker in the home router and
Am 08.11.2012 21:40, schrieb Robert Cragie:
Just to be clear - using a /64 will not necessarily break a home
network with a LLN. It's just that some kludge will be needed and the
least preferable IMHO for LLNs is bridging.
Yes, I agree, and you can't force the LLN routers to be some high-end
Am 08.11.2012 20:04, schrieb Michael Richardson:
"Mattia" == Mattia Rossi writes:
>> In a lot of these conversations, the "lightswitch guys" (as
>> someone called the LLN proponents) seem to get forgotten.
Mattia> So what happens if the "lightswitch guys" want to plug-in a
17 matches
Mail list logo
