Hello,
I tried to make a proposal which would deal with these network splits.
Even though I must say that the PA draft in the first place did not cause any
problem when network splits and joins later (collisions are dealt with). This
adds quite a bunch of complexity, and provides the
Pierre Pfister pierre.pfis...@darou.fr wrote:
9.1.2. Advertising a ULA prefix
A router MAY start advertising a ULA prefix whenever the two
following conditions are met:
o It is the network leader.
o There is no other advertised ULA prefix.
I am concerned
This work in the Broadband Forum might be worth paying attention to.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Liaison Statement Management Tool l...@ietf.org
Subject: New Liaison Statement, Broadband Forum Work on “Hybrid Access for
Broadband Networks” (WT-348)
Date: October 21, 2014 at 12:06:52 PM
FYI. I made sure they were aware of IETF mif and homenet activities in this
area. I intend to try to prevent having to track efforts that try to do the
same thing in two different ways. But some of the BBF effort may be focused on
what can be done around bonding of multiple interfaces that are
Hi,
I agree with whoever it was that said there is not enough explanation
of the threat model in this draft. The result is that I really can't
evaluate whether the proposed solution is complete or adequate.
The other thing that bothers me is that we need a secure homenet, not
just a secure HNCP.
I agree with whoever it was that said there is not enough explanation
of the threat model in this draft. The result is that I really can't
evaluate whether the proposed solution is complete or adequate.
From my point of view there are two vectors through which you can attack
HNCP - as
