Hello Mikael,
Le 17 oct. 2014 à 08:45, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>
>> You keep mentioning this, but you're incorrect. Even if the ISP
>> flash-renumbers, hosts will not lower the lifetime of their IP addresses
>> below 2 hours, per RFC 4862.
>
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
You keep mentioning this, but you're incorrect. Even if the ISP
flash-renumbers, hosts will not lower the lifetime of their IP addresses
below 2 hours, per RFC 4862.
Where in RFC4862 is this described?
A lot of time was spent on RF7084 and its pred
On Oct 16, 2014, at 11:39 AM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> I think support for receiving more specific routes in RA messages (RFC 4191)
> would be easier to get hosts to implement than DHCPv6.
This wouldn't help, because there's nothing to differentiate the GUA from the
ULA.
> In any case, I thin
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > So every time a new prefix comes in, hosts should restart DHCPv6? That
> seems pretty dubious (and expensive). I don't think any DHCP
> implementation works that way.
>
> How do they work, then? And why would you describe this as expensi
On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> So every time a new prefix comes in, hosts should restart DHCPv6? That seems
> pretty dubious (and expensive). I don't think any DHCP implementation works
> that way.
How do they work, then? And why would you describe this as expensive?
> On Oct 10, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>
>> On 10 Oct 2014, at 13:43, Townsley.net wrote:
>>
On Oct 9, 2014, at 9:22 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
On 9 Oct 2014, at 12:03, Ole Troan wrote:
it doesn't make sense to specify something that breaks SLAAC.
On Oct 16, 2014, at 10:18 AM 10/16/14, Lorenzo Colitti
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > Um, no? Why would it?
>
> Because that's an indication that there is new information to be had.
>
> So every time a ne
On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> Um, no? Why would it?
Because that's an indication that there is new information to be had.
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
On Oct 16, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> And when your ISP renumbers you, or a new ULA joins the network, you're going
> to tell the hosts about the new prefix policy using what type of packet?
> There's no reconfigure in stateless DHCPv6.
Wouldn't the host do a DHCP Information Re
>> Unless you have really old stacks your device will pick the new GUA first to
>> talk to your jukebox when you are on your neighbor's network and the ULA to
>> talk to it when you are on your own.
> No, it won't. It will pick GUA->GUA both times.
> Per the table in http://tools.ietf.org/html
On Oct 16, 2014, at 8:15 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> Ted, you're going in circles here. You've been arguing for many messages that
> we should use ULAs because GUAs can be flash renumbered. And now you provide
> an example of an event that *is* a flash renumbering, and then proceed to say
> th
In message
, Lorenzo
Colitti write
s:
> --20cf303dd7088da2c005058a23d9
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Unless you have really old stacks your device will pick the new GUA first to
> > talk to your jukebox when you are on
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Unless you have really old stacks your device will pick the new GUA first to
> talk to your jukebox when you are on your neighbor's network and the ULA
> to talk to it when you are on your own.
>
No, it won't. It will pick GUA->GUA both time
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> My point was that homenets should have ULAs, and should not use GUAs for
> local communication, because GUAs can be flash renumbered,
Actually, they can't.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4862#section-5.5.3 paragraph e) 3.
_
On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:14 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> What I most worry about is for instance SSH.
Mikael, I think we have strayed sufficiently far off the topic that it is
harmful for us to continue discussing it on the homenet mailing list. I agree
with you that better presentation layer
Le 16/10/2014 00:57, Michael Thomas a écrit :
On 10/15/14, 3:49 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my
backyard trapeze watching the flying wallendas instructional
video from my home jukebox, I
Le 16/10/2014 00:49, Ted Lemon a écrit :
On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my
backyard trapeze watching the flying wallendas instructional video
from my home jukebox, I really don't want to have my network break
con
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Shim6 is unfortunately broken, until the day when all middleboxes allow
the extension headers to pass, which is far from true today. MPTCP only
works for TCP. Mosh aparently only works for SSH. Happy eyeballs only
works for browsers. This is far fr
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Tero Kivinen wrote:
My ssh connections are usually up and running for ever. They only go
down when I update my firewall, there is network problems, or our
company firewall is reset for some reason. Usually that means the ssh
connection is up for few months... I would be ve
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Ted Lemon wrote:
minutes is too short, because that will break for example a movie
stream. But a 30-60 minute overlap will work fine for web browsing and
nearly all applications a typical end-user uses other than long movies.
I'd say a lot of the "movie" applications wil
20 matches
Mail list logo
