On 12/11/2012 17:33, Mark Townsley wrote:
> Nice to see a constructive thread with suggested text for the editors of the
> homenet arch, thank you.
>
> I'm concerned with any "issue a warning" type suggestions though. We are
> working hard to develop automatic configuration that assumes there is
+1 to Brian. Falling back to the user left with a broken connection and
no feedback is not acceptable. Short cryptic messages may be terse at
the point of origin but there is no lack of resources on the internet to
elucidate them.
Robert
On 13/11/2012 8:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 12/
Mark,
I agree with what you say but that still means RPL could be on the
table. It seems quite feasible to me that we could have a multi-link
route-over subnet using a routing protocol such as RPL with downstream
border routers as well. This may seem unlikely with an LLN but is more
feasible
On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> even if it's the equivalent
> of the beeping from a smoke detector whose battery is fading.
To which the typical response is to throw the damned thing through the window
out of rage after it's been beeping for a couple of hours.
No, there
Am 13.11.2012 15:14, schrieb Ted Lemon:
On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
even if it's the equivalent
of the beeping from a smoke detector whose battery is fading.
To which the typical response is to throw the damned thing through the window
out of rage after it's been be
On 11/13/2012 12:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 12/11/2012 17:33, Mark Townsley wrote:
Nice to see a constructive thread with suggested text for the editors of the
homenet arch, thank you.
I'm concerned with any "issue a warning" type suggestions though. We are
working hard to develop aut
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 12:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>> On 12/11/2012 17:33, Mark Townsley wrote:
>>>
>>> Nice to see a constructive thread with suggested text for the editors of
>>> the homenet arch, thank you.
>>>
>>> I'm concerned with any
On Nov 13, 2012, at 5:27 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 12:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/11/2012 17:33, Mark Townsley wrote:
Nice to see a constructive thread with suggested text for the editors of
t
On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Mattia Rossi
wrote:
> I still like the idea of a led which is red if no prefix could be received,
> orange if a /64 has been assigned, and a prefix has been requested from a
> downstream router (no prefix for the downstream router), and green if a
> prefix < /64 ha
Given the "complexity" of a potential home net, a complexity that is often
alluded to on the mail list (including below), there will no doubt be "policy"
that has to be introduced - a policy language or facility that can be described
or communicated by an end user, preferably without technical
Hi All,
I've been away from the list for awhile, and am trying to catch up -- is there
a reference or quick explanation as to why a "/64" assigned to a home network
is considered to be potentially "constrained" somehow ?
Thanks,
Randy
On Nov 13, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Randy Turner wrote:
>
> G
I've been watching the discussion about recursive DHCPv6-PD with more than
a little discomfort; I did not want to throw this bomb until the issue had
been discussed in depth (as prefix delegation is a problem we must solve).
The hardest problem I've ever had to debug in my home network (by far) wa
On 13/11/12 19:04, Jim Gettys wrote:
So the recursive DHCP-PD scheme strikes me as something possibly very
fragile. I really, really don't want to repeat the experience I had with
having extra DHCP servers, and I would guess few ISP's do either.
It seems to me much more robust to flood the key
On 13/11/12 18:33, Randy Turner wrote:
Hi All,
I've been away from the list for awhile, and am trying to catch up --
is there a reference or quick explanation as to why a "/64" assigned
to a home network is considered to be potentially "constrained"
somehow ?
Because no IPv6 network can be
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 13/11/12 19:04, Jim Gettys wrote:
>
>
>> So the recursive DHCP-PD scheme strikes me as something possibly very
>> fragile. I really, really don't want to repeat the experience I had with
>> having extra DHCP servers, and I would guess few I
On 13/11/12 20:48, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Simon Kelleywrote:
Given that hosts are going to want to talk RA or DHCPv6, at least
initially, one option down this route has the flood include the unicast
address of a single, centralised DHCPv6 server, and routers r
On Nov 13, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
> So the recursive DHCP-PD scheme strikes me as something possibly very
> fragile. I really, really don't want to repeat the experience I had with
> having extra DHCP servers, and I would guess few ISP's do either.
It seems to me that using bad imp
On 11/13/2012 09:22 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
Each and every part of the router must do everything it can to work without bugging the user. it's
enough work to bother them for the *really* important stuff like "do I let this device on the
network?", "do I allow connectivity with my neighbor", e
On Nov 13, 2012, at 10:33 , Randy Turner wrote:
> I've been away from the list for awhile, and am trying to catch up -- is
> there a reference or quick explanation as to why a "/64" assigned to a home
> network is considered to be potentially "constrained" somehow ?
Once upon a time [RFC 3177]
On 2012-11-13 5:47 PM, "james woodyatt" wrote:
>
>For my part, I have a hard time foreseeing how the expectation that
>residential sites will always have more space to assign than a single /64
>subnet is even remotely reasonable. Far too many service providers are
>casting into operational conc
I was thinking that, in an effort to reduce scope to something we can deal with
for now, that a /64 would be big enough - and if this prefix is "globally
available" on the internet, I think it's much more than the ISPs can get their
heads around, at least for now.
I understand the limitations
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, james woodyatt wrote:
For my part, I have a hard time foreseeing how the expectation that
residential sites will always have more space to assign than a single
/64 subnet is even remotely reasonable. Far too many service providers
are casting into operational concrete top
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Mattia Rossi wrote:
I still like the idea of a led which is red if no prefix could be received,
orange if a /64 has been assigned, and a prefix has been requested from a
downstream router (no prefix for the downstream router), and green if a
prefix < /64 has been assigned
On 11/13/12 9:20 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Why do you believe we need coordination between service providers to
permit multihomed services to work well? I thought the whole idea was
to handle multiple upstream prefixes and make sure everything is
routed to the correct ISP?
If coordinatio
24 matches
Mail list logo
