Hi,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 10:55:52PM +, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Thanks. Seeing other replies, I also hear a requirement (d) have
> plug-and-play routing, and (e) support MIF. I think plug-and-play is a work
> in progress until routing is decided. I would break down the problem
>> I may have misunderstood -- but are you saying that you have the
>> technology to perform bidirectional redistribution between two very
>> different routing protocols in an unadministered network, and
>> guarantee the absence of persistent routing loops without making
>> any assumptions about th
+1 - well said. If it weren't actually a serious issue, I would find the
constant bickering in homenet re. routing protocol quite comical. I come
from the other end of the spectrum (LLNs) and was put off a while ago with
the general disdain for catering for anything "the light switch guys" (as
we w
On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> The former is obvious but I'm not sure that any case has been made to require
> MPVDs in the basic Homenet model. There are no references to the MIF WG or its
> documents in the Homenet architecture RFC.
Since MPVDs are implemented on host
I was going to stay quiet on this issue, but what the heck…I’ve been following
this on the sidelines for long enough to think I have an opinion (without
having a stake in this).
My immediate impulse, from following all this from the peanut gallery, is that:
1/ It is required that H
Hi Hemant,
Thanks for the reply, but...
> >There was a claim that IS-IS provides "diagnostics".
> >What sort of diagnostics?
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr9000/software/asr9k_r4
> 3/routing/configuration/guide/b_routing_cg43xasr9k/b_routing_cg43xasr9k
> _chapter_01011.html#c
Barbara,
Humble apologies for the URL to the Cisco ISIS diags document. Please use the
tinyurl below which works. I will read rest of your email later in the day
and other emails from homenet as well.
http://tinyurl.com/o8znoam
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: STARK, BARBARA H [mai
> So when IS-IS talks about topology discovery, it's talking about router
> topology, with no knowledge of hosts or bridges or PHY technologies. I'm
> sorry, but in a home network, the router topology is really the least of my
> worries.
Maybe to add some info from the HNCP front: HNCP also ma
On Jul 28, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Thomas Clausen wrote:
> 4/ I am not so sure that HOMENET (or the IETF) wins by staging a
> beauty contest among routing protocols, to “pick the most
> beautiful”,
> and then mandate that as:
>
> “THE ONE T
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Margaret Cullen wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>> The former is obvious but I'm not sure that any case has been made to require
>> MPVDs in the basic Homenet model. There are no references to the MIF WG or
>> its
>> documents
Dear Ted,
My point was simply that the IETF has multiple of … pretty much everything else
… the reason why things work is that somebody (an operator group, an industry
alliance/forum, …) figure out what is MTI — for their context — and then do
that.
I am simply wondering out loud why that woul
On Jul 28, 2015, at 10:24 AM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> 2. Technologies that are not resilient against links that go up and down
> frequently and for no apparent reason are useless in a home network. These
> links are prevalent in the home network. And not just the wireless links. The
> powerli
On Jul 28, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Thomas Clausen wrote:
> My point was simply that the IETF has multiple of … pretty much everything
> else … the reason why things work is that somebody (an operator group, an
> industry alliance/forum, …) figure out what is MTI — for their context — and
> then do t
Hi,
> My point was simply that the IETF has multiple of … pretty much everything
> else … the reason why things work is that somebody (an operator group, an
> industry alliance/forum, …) figure out what is MTI — for their context — and
> then do that.
>
> I am simply wondering out loud why tha
> My point was simply that the IETF has multiple of … pretty much everything
> else … the reason why things work is that somebody (an operator group, an
> industry alliance/forum, …) figure out what is MTI — for their context — and
> then do that.
> I am simply wondering out loud why that would
Hello Thomas,
let me just quickly say, thanks again for your detailed reviews. Together with
the others it helped us a great deal in advancing the draft to where it is
today.
We have put your HNCP-review and this follow up for DNCP on our todo,
and will provide you with some detailed changes and
On 7/28/2015 11:59 AM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
It would be possible for a group like BBF or CableLabs to recommend
something for use in operator-procured devices. In some cases this has
been effective in getting retail devices also to support (e.g.,
PPPoE). The US cable industry would perhaps
mark townsley's presentation at uknof was probably the best (somewhat)
brief explanation of why the homenet working group exists, and the
problems it is trying to solve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQdfWUsG4uI
--
Dave Täht
worldwide bufferbloat report:
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/res
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:55:16AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> This means that the end user can be assumed to plug home routers together
> in arbitrary topologies, [..]
>
> Our goal is for this to work in a multihomed IPv6 environment.
Just to repeat myself from yesterday :-) - OpenWRT wit
(x-post mif / homenet)
Hello everyone,
little backstory: when I learned about the multiple interfaces problematic
in homenet, I was introduced to it with the anecdote of smartphone apps with
"use over 3g", "use only on wifi" settings and at some point there was
draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-pref
Gabriel,
Thanks. I did read the section. One comment. The section says ISIS does not
support distance vector. ISIS is a link state routing protocol and thus it
does not support any distance vector operation.
Hemant
From: Gabriel Kerneis [mailto:kern...@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28,
-Original Message-
From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@space.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 4:39 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Pierre Pfister; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Ted Lemon; HOMENET; Terry
Manderson; Gert Doering; Dino Farinacci; Mikael Abrahamsson
Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving
-Original Message-
From: Juliusz Chroboczek [mailto:j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 5:08 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: HOMENET
Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving forward.
>Yes, I have. On one router this is easy. You obviously need two routers in
>order to
-Original Message-
From: STARK, BARBARA H [mailto:bs7...@att.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:24 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); homenet@ietf.org
Subject: RE: some IS-IS questions
>BTW, I did do a quick price scan of Cisco ASR 9000 series routers, and believe
>they may be just a lit
Back in February I had distributed a basic poll about what sorts of technologies
were common in the home, and got back about 25 results from ietfers.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet/current/msg04724.html
Lest the complexity of those networks be written off as a geekisms, I also
ran t
25 matches
Mail list logo
