On 04/02/2014 04:29, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> I am also skeptical that there are significant configuration things in the
>> homenet which *do not* ultimately need to share fate with connectivity.
>
> ULA seems like an obvious example.
If the ne
Juliusz,
On 03/02/2014 08:53, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> I happen to have one in mind. It's discussed for the case of
>> carrier networks in
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-config-negotiation-ps-02
>
> I've now read this draft. Section 2.4 says things that I never even
> considered,
On Feb 3, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> Perhaps, but if implementations don't actually do this (and I don't think
> they do), then it doesn't really matter what the intent was.
There are no homenet router implementations.
___
homenet mail
On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I am also skeptical that there are significant configuration things in the
> homenet which *do not* ultimately need to share fate with connectivity.
ULA seems like an obvious example.
___
homenet
Michael Richardson wrote:
> I am also skeptical that there are significant configuration things in the
> homenet which ultimately need to share fate with connectivity.
Let me try again:
I am also skeptical that there are significant configuration things in the
homenet which *do not* ulti
On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Pierre Pfister wrote:
> I’m not sure DHCP Relaying was intended to work with different DHCP servers.
> In any case, DHCP client was not.
This is not actually true. RFC 3315 was written with the clear anticipation
of the possibility that a DHCP client might talk to
Le 3 févr. 2014 à 07:11, Ray Bellis a écrit :
>
> On 3 Feb 2014, at 12:51, Alexandru Petrescu
> wrote:
>
>> In this setting the Router3 could run two DHCPRelay processes, and Router1
>> and 2 would be Servers.
>>
>> This would allow Host to obtain an address from each (==multi-homed).
I’m
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> As usual, it's a tradeoff, and the choice of tradeoff is dependent on
> one's background.
> Those of us who come from the Free Software chaos will prefer small,
> self-contained protocols that can be implemented by small, loosely
> coupled groups o
Le 03/02/2014 15:11, Ray Bellis a écrit :
On 3 Feb 2014, at 12:51, Alexandru Petrescu
wrote:
In this setting the Router3 could run two DHCPRelay processes, and
Router1 and 2 would be Servers.
This would allow Host to obtain an address from each
(==multi-homed).
It could, but assume that Ro
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> You (and others) who speak of a "Homenet Configuration
> Protocol" seem to be making an assumption which is far from
> clear to me. That assumption is that config parameters in a homenet
> will come in some sense top-down from a higher level source of
On 3 Feb 2014, at 12:51, Alexandru Petrescu
wrote:
> In this setting the Router3 could run two DHCPRelay processes, and Router1
> and 2 would be Servers.
>
> This would allow Host to obtain an address from each (==multi-homed).
It could, but assume that Router3 doesn't yet know anything abou
Le 30/01/2014 14:03, Ole Troan a écrit :
Alex,
changing the thread since this seems to diverge from getting answers to the
questions I asked.
cheers,
Ole
On 30 Jan 2014, at 13:55 , Alexandru Petrescu
wrote:
Pierre,
Thanks for the reply.
Le 30/01/2014 13:46, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
L
> 7) I generally despair of this entire debate, and wish more people
> were writing code, doing experiments, and working inside the real
> world. I hate that this discussion has ratholed on the method of
> distribution, rather on than on "what configuration information needs
> to be propagated insi
Le 02/02/2014 17:47, Acee Lindem a écrit :
I agree.
I disagree questioning what happens when the routing protocol finds out
that even though the delegation protocol things everything is ok and
addresses were delegated justfine the network becomes partitioned.
First, I would try to understand w
14 matches
Mail list logo
