On Sat, 8 Aug 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
As I understand the presentation that kicked off this discussion, this
becomes an issue since IPv6 relies more on multicast.
I may be confused, but I was under the impression that IPv6 uses multicast
(ND, RA) in the exact same places where IPv4 use
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015, Pat (Patricia) Thaler wrote:
No one is saying that 802.11 can't do multicast. It does do multicast,
but with more loss than the protocols sending multicast may assume or be
able to accommodate. As I understand the presentation that kicked off
this discussion, this becomes a
>> To add to that: has there ever been any evaluation/participation of
>> IS-IS at Battle Mesh?
> No sign of ISIS here. OLSR, batman, and babel in abundance.
Battlemesh tests are done in a pure mesh topology (with non-transitive
links), so IS-IS wouldn't work here. (This is not an argument again
> As I understand the presentation that kicked off this discussion, this
> becomes an issue since IPv6 relies more on multicast.
I may be confused, but I was under the impression that IPv6 uses multicast
(ND, RA) in the exact same places where IPv4 uses broadcast (ARP, DHCPv4).
As far as the 802.1
No one is saying that 802.11 can't do multicast. It does do multicast, but with
more loss than the protocols sending multicast may assume or be able to
accommodate. As I understand the presentation that kicked off this discussion,
this becomes an issue since IPv6 relies more on multicast. While
What you are suggesting here is heresy.
You are saying that the basic assumption made 35 years ago,
Layering,
doesn't work.
What a surprise.
It is not only true for WiFi,
we are confronting the same problem with higher layers and applications wanting
to send/receive precise timing information over
new-w...@ietf.org is alive & used for coordination and information. We
also coordinate specifically with the IEEE on items of mutual interest
several times a year.
On Aug 7, 2015 12:13 PM, "Brian E Carpenter"
wrote:
> On 08/08/2015 02:44, Weil, Jason wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that IEEE and I
I meant "enterprise AP vendors".
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 12:02 AM
To: Dorothy Stanley
Cc: Donald Eastlake; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Glenn Parsons; Toerless Eckert
(eckert); ieee-ietf-co...@ietf.org; Homenet; Alia A
On 08/08/2015 02:44, Weil, Jason wrote:
> Are you suggesting that IEEE and IETF send liaison letters to each other
> when they begin crafting new protocols?
Actually such a mechanism has existed for 15 years or so: the infamous
new-w...@ietf.org list, which I invented. It's a closed list (at this
Are you suggesting that IEEE and IETF send liaison letters to each other
when they begin crafting new protocols? This could possibly be useful
assuming anyone acted on it. The more likely scenario is for each SDO to
send an liaison saying ³Hey we just spent x years designing our new
protocol y, ple
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 02:30:58PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> > To me, the main reason seems to be that a very vocal minority insists
> > that it absolutely *has* to be IS-IS...
>
> Yes, it's a lot easier to reach agreement on one solution
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Gert Doering wrote:
To me, the main reason seems to be that a very vocal minority insists
that it absolutely *has* to be IS-IS...
Yes, it's a lot easier to reach agreement on one solution if people with
differing opinion shut up and go away.
Are you seriously saying that
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 02:19:51PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> We don't have agreement on what homenet should be, what it looks like,
> what the requirements are, how it's implemented, and what's important over
> time. That's why we can't come to agreement on what routing protocol to
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Gert Doering wrote:
What is it that Babel does *not* do that ISIS does (and that is relevant
for a homenet scenario)?
This has been stated and dismissed multiple times because of differing
opinions how important these things are.
For instance, babel does not have an IETF
Dear WG,
As there have been substantial changes since the WG last call on version 06
of draft-ietf-homenet-hncp, we are going to extend the WG last call for
this document. We would like to ask that review attention be directed
towards that which either was brought up during the initial last call,
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 08:53:48AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> Well, I am still of the opinion that ISIS would work well without
> modifications for Wifi that works as intended. It's also been that when I
> have questioned why people would have crappy wifi (which is seems to be
> one
HGI is requesting Home Gateways to perform Wi-Fi multicast-to-unicast
conversion, see http://www.homegatewayinitiative.org/publis/P_HGI01628R19.pdf .
Regards,
Frank
From: homenet [homenet-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Juliusz Chroboczek
[j...@pps.univ
> I don't see how you can claim that ISIS can't use multicast on wifi
> because multicast on wifi doesn't work,
I have never claimed that. Babel uses multicast on wifi. (Once again,
Mikael, I request that you stop misrepresenting my position.)
I think that the multicast reduction technique used
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
That's an overstatement. IPv6 works just fine over 802.11, it just
From what I heard in v6ops, it doesn't work well for larger settings like
conferences, at least not without multicast reduction techniques.
So I'd say it suffers from the exact
> Just to be sure again, what are the requirements for "wifi backbone use
> case"? Minimal use of multicast? Metric set so cable is prefered over
> wifi? Or also that it checks regularily if packets can be delivered and
> change metric?
These are all implementation details.
We can argue all day a
Am 7. August 2015 09:02:29 MESZ, schrieb Mikael Abrahamsson :
>On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Dorothy Stanley wrote:
>
>> d) Additionally, most if not all AP vendors implement multicast -
>> unicast conversion and use it as they see the need for it.
>
>Just for clarification, do you mean "enterprise AP ve
> However, I do think that 802.11 needs to point out to its members that if
> they don't implement assured multicast replication, IP doesn't work
> properly.
That's an overstatement. IPv6 works just fine over 802.11, it just
suffers from increased multicast packet loss and lower rate. I don't
th
I remember non-transitive on faulty 10Base2. And lack of good multicast in FR
and ATM.
There is a lot of IEEE802.11 stuff that works great for large scale WISP and
enterprises, but is not available in open source or cheap home routers. At my
WLC enabled home, I have most of the 802.11 optimizat
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Dorothy Stanley wrote:
d) Additionally, most if not all AP vendors implement multicast -
unicast conversion and use it as they see the need for it.
Just for clarification, do you mean "enterprise AP vendors" or do you
really mean "most if not all AP vendors" across the ent
24 matches
Mail list logo
