I would like to *require* of the design team that they actually
install the available software on at least three routers and try it.
I would certainly like to require of the working group the same, but
despite 2 years of trying, have lost hope.
___
+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
-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
-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]
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,
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
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 the
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
On Jul 28, 2015, at 10:24 AM, STARK, BARBARA H bs7...@att.com 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.
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
On Jul 28, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Thomas Clausen i...@thomasclausen.org 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
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
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Margaret Cullen mrculle...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
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
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
On Jul 28, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Thomas Clausen i...@thomasclausen.org 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:
On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
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
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
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:
-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
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 with
(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
21 matches
Mail list logo
