[homenet] [Errata Verified] RFC7788 (4677)

The following errata report has been verified for RFC7788, "Home Networking Control Protocol". -- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7788=4677 -- Status: Verified Type:

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

> What happens if that new router has been booted stand-alone (so it creates > its own ULA), and then joins the Homenet by being plugged in, and has > a higher node identifier? Each partition has at most one ULA. When the partition heals, a single ULA is retained. > Shouldn't this be a voting

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

As long as the renumbering process is clean, there is no downside to renumbering, and no reason to be careful about which ULA you ultimately wind up with. On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: > > Juliusz Chroboczek > 12

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Juliusz Chroboczek 12 May 2016 15:10 If I'm reading you correctly, Ray, you're promoting unstable naming. Not promoting. Looking at the consequences. If I have two routers called trurl and pirx in my network, then my printer will becalled

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

If I'm reading you correctly, Ray, you're promoting unstable naming. If I have two routers called trurl and pirx in my network, then my printer will becalled diablo630.pirx.home whe pirx is up, diablo630.trurl.home when trurl is up, and either I reconfigure all of my hosts every time I swap a

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Ted Lemon 11 May 2016 20:03 DNS update is pretty simple. Any problem with using that? Not with the update mechanism itself I think you may be slightly conclusing "authoritative" and "primary." There is no need to elect authoritative servers--just make them