Hello Brian and James,
Thanks for the heads up. CANs will be replaced in next version.
So I’m clarifying the two first points in 4.3
o It can be delegated by a service provider (DHCPv6 PD, 6rd
[RFC5969], etc..).
o It can be provisioned by an administrative authority (user
co
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Pierre Pfister
wrote:
>
> But I’m going to change it and making it more clear that authorities can
> provide their own prefixes. Even ULAs.
>
Thanks! I'm very pleased to see this agreement.
--
james woodyatt
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering
_
>
> I think my concern might be ameliorated by drawing a distinction in the
> requirements between a single distinguished Home ULA Prefix and any number of
> other Exterior ULA Prefix delegations. The former prefix is autonomously
> generated by the HOMENET router in the Leader role, whereas
On 9 Oct 2014, at 12:03, Ole Troan wrote:
> it doesn't make sense to specify something that breaks SLAAC.
>
> protocol design is politics. we want to make it clear to the address
> delegation authorities that not delegating a large enough address block will
> lead to breakage.
>
> in my view,
On 09/10/2014 22:29, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Thanks for updating.
>
> Le 09/10/2014 11:26, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
>> Hello,
>>
>> I’m proposing this change then.
>>
>> 1. In case the provided prefix is 64, the default consist in assigning
>> prefixes of length 64 first.
>> 2. I’m adding a re
Works for me, but for RFC 2119, s/CAN/MAY/.
Thanks
Brian
On 09/10/2014 22:04, Pierre Pfister wrote:
> Hello James and Brian,
>
> What do you think of the following proposal ?
> It allows any router to generate a ULA (it adds more complexity because
> collisions must be avoided, even though t
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Pierre Pfister
wrote:
>
> What do you think of the following proposal ?
> It allows any router to generate a ULA (it adds more complexity because
> collisions must be avoided, even though the Backoff was necessary at boot
> anyway).
>
As this is a Standards Track
Heya,
it seems to be aiming to work only within link-local collision domain, and
therefore it seems to be outside the work homenet WG is chartered to do.
Perhaps dnssd is more appropriate for this work, although I am not sure about
that either (they do more than just naming, as the focus is on
Hi all,
I submitted a new Internet Draft about "DNS name autoconfiguration for Home
network or IoT devices".
The DNS name autoconfiguration for home network devices will be useful
for the IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration of Home network (or IoT) devices
along with
RFC 6106 for "IPv6 Router Advert
Reply inline
Le 9 oct. 2014 à 13:03, Ole Troan a écrit :
> Pierre,
>
> I certainly understand your argument, and we don't disagree on the technical
> merit.
>
>> I’m proposing this change then.
>>
>> 1. In case the provided prefix is 64, the default consist in assigning
>> prefixes of leng
Pierre,
I certainly understand your argument, and we don't disagree on the technical
merit.
> I’m proposing this change then.
>
> 1. In case the provided prefix is 64, the default consist in assigning
> prefixes of length 64 first.
> 2. I’m adding a reference to 6man-why64.
>
> When the algor
FYI, just in case you're not subscribed to ANIMA.
Regards, Benoit
Original Message
Subject:ANIMA charter: status update
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:52:12 +0200
From: Benoit Claise
To: an...@ietf.org
Dear all,
From the minutes of the October 2, 2014 IESG Tel
On 02/10/2014 14:57, Laurent Ciavaglia wrote:
Dear Benoit, Markus, all,
On 02/10/2014 14:16, Benoit Claise wrote:
On 01/10/2014 18:27, Markus Stenberg wrote:
Notably, adoption of a solution (discovery+negotiation protocol) before
adoption of use cases seems like putting cart before the horse
Hello Pierre,
Le 09/10/2014 11:26, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
[...]
The following table MAY be used as default values, where X is the
length of the delegated prefix.
If X <= 64: Prefix length = 64
I disagree. In general, for assigning prefixes, and subsequently
routing to them, I
Le 09/10/2014 02:35, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
On 09/10/2014 03:21, Tim Chown wrote:
On 8 Oct 2014, at 14:14, Pierre Pfister wrote:
Why should we mandate homenet implementations to *brake* in situations where
they could work fine ? Why should we voluntarily prevent a link from being
config
Thanks for updating.
Le 09/10/2014 11:26, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
Hello,
I’m proposing this change then.
1. In case the provided prefix is 64, the default consist in assigning
prefixes of length 64 first.
2. I’m adding a reference to 6man-why64.
When the algorithm decides to make a new assig
Hello,
I’m proposing this change then.
1. In case the provided prefix is 64, the default consist in assigning prefixes
of length 64 first.
2. I’m adding a reference to 6man-why64.
When the algorithm decides to make a new assignment, it first needs
to specify the desired size of the assigned
Hello James and Brian,
What do you think of the following proposal ?
It allows any router to generate a ULA (it adds more complexity because
collisions must be avoided, even though the Backoff was necessary at boot
anyway).
And it conforms to RFC4193 whenever possible (date is available and stab
18 matches
Mail list logo
