Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks

On 26/02/13 06:39, Fernando Gont wrote: Hi, Ted, On 02/22/2013 04:44 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: Right now, I don't think that sufficient energy is being given to just one obvious problem: how does real DNS interact with prefix delegation in the ho

Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks

On 26/02/13 06:14, Fernando Gont wrote: Hi, Simon, On 02/23/2013 03:02 PM, Simon Kelley wrote: On 23/02/13 17:56, Teemu Savolainen wrote: And this works with hosts that use IPv6 privacy addresses and not have IIDs derived from MAC? If they have only privacy addresses, it doesn't work. If the

Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks

Hi, Ted, On 02/22/2013 04:44 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: >> Right now, I don't think that sufficient energy is being given to >> just one obvious problem: how does real DNS interact with prefix >> delegation in the home (assuming that we don't want s

Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks

Hi, Simon, On 02/23/2013 03:02 PM, Simon Kelley wrote: > On 23/02/13 17:56, Teemu Savolainen wrote: >> And this works with hosts that use IPv6 privacy addresses and not have >> IIDs derived from MAC? > > If they have only privacy addresses, it doesn't work. If they have both > a SLAAC address and

Re: [homenet] automatic prefix management (OSPF or ISIS version)

Sent from ipv6-only Android On Feb 26, 2013 1:54 PM, "Cameron Byrne" wrote: > > Sent from ipv6-only Android > > On Feb 26, 2013 11:53 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > >> > >> > The alternative is basically a vicious circle: if ISPs ignore

Re: [homenet] automatic prefix management (OSPF or ISIS version)

Sent from ipv6-only Android On Feb 26, 2013 11:53 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> >> > The alternative is basically a vicious circle: if ISPs ignore the IETF's advice and assign a /64 because they see additional address space as an upsell opp

Re: [homenet] renumbering the IETF

In message , Lorenzo Colitti writes: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > Hmm. Do we know for sure that all clients properly depref ULAs below > > global > > > addresses (either because they follow RFC6724 instead of RFC3484, or > > > because they implement the long

Re: [homenet] renumbering the IETF

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > Hmm. Do we know for sure that all clients properly depref ULAs below > global > > addresses (either because they follow RFC6724 instead of RFC3484, or > > because they implement the longest prefix matching rule?) If not, some > > clients mi

Re: [homenet] renumbering the IETF

In message , Lorenzo Colitti writes: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: > > > > Great idea. I won't be in Orlando, but I am fairly sure there is nothing > > > I would do there that cares about address persistency, apart from > > > having to reconnect to jabber maybe. Con

Re: [homenet] renumbering the IETF

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: > > Great idea. I won't be in Orlando, but I am fairly sure there is nothing > > I would do there that cares about address persistency, apart from > > having to reconnect to jabber maybe. Conducting an RFC 4192 procedure > > on Tuesday night a

Re: [homenet] automatic prefix management (OSPF or ISIS version)

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > The alternative is basically a vicious circle: if ISPs ignore the IETF's > advice and assign a /64 because they see additional address space as an > upsell opportunity, then someone will figure out how to share the /64 by > using ugly hacks l

Re: [homenet] automatic prefix management (OSPF or ISIS version)

On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:35 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > The alternative is basically a vicious circle: if ISPs ignore the IETF's > advice and assign a /64 because they see additional address space as an > upsell opportunity, then someone will figure out how to share the /64 by > using ugly hacks

Re: [homenet] automatic prefix management (OSPF or ISIS version)

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM, james woodyatt wrote: > p1. I don't believe it's reasonable to assume that service providers will > always provide a short enough prefix to number all the links in a > subscriber's network, or that those that currently do will continue to do > so into the foresee

Re: [homenet] FW: New Version Notification for draft-grundemann-homenet-hipnet-00.txt

WRT to Section 4.1, I think the "/48 check" may not be a good idea. It may work for /your/ deployment models, but it doesn't necessarily work for all. Furthermore, if this were widely adopted it would effectively enforce that deployment model all providers, needlessly I think. Consider a deployme

Re: [homenet] automatic prefix management (OSPF or ISIS version)

In message <1d1732d1-ac03-450a-add2-611f2fb1c...@apple.com>, james woodyatt wri tes: > p3. All this pain can be traded away for the reasonably well-understood pain > of NAT66 and a single ULA prefix with a constant 16-bit subnet identifier spa > ce, where collisions will be rare and stateless pre

[homenet] multiple upstreams for igmp/mld proxy

Hi, I've been working in PIM WG and submitted a draft describing multiple upstream interface support for IGMP/MLD proxy. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asaeda-pim-mldproxy-multif-01 The abstract is as follows; This document describes the way of supporting multiple upstream interfaces for

Re: [homenet] automatic prefix management (OSPF or ISIS version)

On Feb 25, 2013, at 16:28 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:21 AM, james woodyatt wrote: >> As a result, it means that Automatic Prefix Management here is basically >> unable to do it statelessly, i.e. by randomly generating subnet numbers from >> an identifier space of conve

Re: [homenet] automatic prefix management (OSPF or ISIS version)

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:21 AM, james woodyatt wrote: > As a result, it means that Automatic Prefix Management here is basically > unable to do it statelessly, i.e. by randomly generating subnet numbers > from an identifier space of conventional size and testing for collision > before using them

Re: [homenet] renumbering the IETF

On 25 Feb 2013, at 22:17, Mark Townsley wrote > > On Feb 23, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> On 23/02/2013 05:53, Erik Kline wrote: >> .. >>> I wonder if we should ask the NOC about performing a renumbering >>> during the next IETF meeting. >>> >>> Ideally, we should be able to

Re: [homenet] renumbering the IETF

On Feb 23, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 23/02/2013 05:53, Erik Kline wrote: > .. >> I wonder if we should ask the NOC about performing a renumbering >> during the next IETF meeting. >> >> Ideally, we should be able to perform one or two (or three) >> renumberings in a week, gl

Re: [homenet] automatic prefix management (OSPF or ISIS version)

On Feb 25, 2013, at 11:21 AM, james woodyatt wrote: > Basically, we've given up on stateless router autoconfiguration in HOMENET, > and we're forced into a stateful solution. There are no good choices here, > and the worst case outcome is that we will force the widespread adoption of > NAT66

Re: [homenet] automatic prefix management (OSPF or ISIS version)

On Feb 23, 2013, at 14:24 , Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > > One: the v6ops result reflects the operational result in the ARIN community: > operators there would like to be able to allocate /56 prefixes to smaller > customers and /48s to larger ones. If you want castigate someone, castigate > them

Re: [homenet] Egress Routing Discussion: Baker model

> Lorenzo Colitti > 25 February 2013 09:47 > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Ray Hunter > wrote: > > Figure 2 of the architecture is the problematic one, where there > are end > hosts that share the only connection between 2 CERs (f

Re: [homenet] Egress Routing Discussion: Baker model

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Ray Hunter wrote: > Figure 2 of the architecture is the problematic one, where there are end > hosts that share the only connection between 2 CERs (from competing ISPs). > > The end hosts do not share the same information as the 2 routers > (the end hosts ignore r

Re: [homenet] Egress Routing Discussion: Baker model

> Lorenzo Colitti > 25 February 2013 01:50 > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Ole Troan > wrote: > > > IPv6 Host H1 will receive two PIO's, one each from R1 and R2, with > > autoconfiguration and on-link flags set, and configure /64 >