L3 - route injection (got a routing protocol there already, use it)
>>>
>>> This sounds like it needs at least a coordination protocol between the APs?
>>
>> NO, just between the first-hop (homenet) routers. Should work with unchanged
>> of the shelf crap-APs as long as they're attached to a h
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
The client is running a stub implementation of the routing protocol.
I thought we already had decided we didn't require changes to the host?
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
___
homenet
>> The client is running a stub implementation of the routing protocol.
> I thought we already had decided we didn't require changes to the host?
We don't *require* changes to the host. We propose optional host
modifications that improve the user experience.
The chairs will correct me if I'm wr
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 08:50:10AM -0800, Dave Taht wrote:
> 0) Have you managed to get ipv6 working at all? If so, how? What sort
> of problems did you encounter?
Yes.
How ? Through configuration ? Don't understand the question.
Problems:
a) IPv6 incapable clients:
2 IP printers
1 printer-ad
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 07:02:44AM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> >NO, just between the first-hop (homenet) routers. Should work with
> >unchanged
> >of the shelf crap-APs as long as they're attached to a homenet router.
>
> Could someone please explain to me how this is supposed to work? How
I ran RIP on ca. 50 multi-homed clients in the early 90'th wth /32 route
injection
for both addresses, which effectively was also used for what we'd call
mobility today. Worked very good. Trying to remember the
reconvergence time after link down... I think i had tuned down the
RIP hello interval.
> I think i had tuned down the RIP hello interval.
Impossible. It was the Update interval that you had tuned down.
> I probably would prefer not to use one of the real routing protocols, but
> something lightweight. RIP is a stupid routing protocol but just to
> announce aliveness of host interf
Of course you're right, but let me play devils advocate for a bit:
I am not sure how important it is to separate fast-hello from route
announcements for hosts. We may have <= 10 addresses on a host. Where would
be have a problem ? processing in the receiving router ?
Something as simple as RIP
retitling this because I really, really, really, would like more
people using hncpd
and providing feedback on that, rather than arguing over specification
documents.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Markus Stenberg wrote:
>> On 20.2.2015, at 22.01, Dave Taht wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:
> I am not sure how important it is to separate fast-hello from route
> announcements for hosts. We may have <= 10 addresses on a host. Where would
> be have a problem ?
Radio congestion due to the announcements from the routers, which in RIP
would be advertising the whole network every Update int
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 08:48:29PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> (Recall that multicast is 2Mbit/s at the phy. 13ms for a full-size frame,
> not counting the cost of collisions.)
Ok. But we also need a way to support fast router redundancy IMHO.
Cheers
Toerless
> > Something as simple
>> (Recall that multicast is 2Mbit/s at the phy. 13ms for a full-size frame,
>> not counting the cost of collisions.)
> Ok. But we also need a way to support fast router redundancy IMHO.
Could you please explain what you mean?
-- Juliusz
___
homenet
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 09:29:17PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> >> (Recall that multicast is 2Mbit/s at the phy. 13ms for a full-size frame,
> >> not counting the cost of collisions.)
>
> > Ok. But we also need a way to support fast router redundancy IMHO.
>
> Could you please explain what
Is there an hncpd howto somewhere?
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Is there an hncpd howto somewhere?
>
http://www.homewrt.org/doku.php?id=overview
I am not sure if the howto is entirely up to date - for example I hope
they switched to using the standard openwrt ip6assign instead ip6_plen
in the /etc/config/ne
and while I am at it, reviewing the draft shows that:
" HNCP requires allocation of UDP port numbers HNCP-UDP-PORT and HNCP-
DTLS-PORT, as well as an IPv6 link-local multicast address All-
Homenet-Routers."
have these been applied for?
There is no scarcity on ipv6 multicast addresses at l
Getting an early allocation for two UDP ports is probably not going to happen.
A link-local multicast address early allocation isn't out of the question, but
it would be easier to just publish the document.
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
On 2/20/15 8:50 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> The homenet working group has been laboring for several years now to
> find ways to make ipv6 more deployable to home (and presumably small
> business) users.
>
> In addition to multiple specification documents some code has been
> produced to try and make th
18 matches
Mail list logo
