Juliusz, with all due respect, if you have a connection over IPv4 and
suddenly your IPv4 network is deconfigured, your connection will hang. I
know this because that's what happened. This is not good behavior, and
should not be the default behavior of homenets.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:29 PM
>> But if we want homenet to be widely adopted, I do not think this is the
>> correct default behavior: it violates the principle of least surprise.
> There's no surprise, it just works. RFC 6724, Section 6, Rule 8.
Er, no. ULAs have global scope. My bad.
-- Juliusz
_
> In order for IPv6 to be useful, you need naming to work.
No argument here.
> But if we want homenet to be widely adopted, I do not think this is the
> correct default behavior: it violates the principle of least surprise.
There's no surprise, it just works. RFC 6724, Section 6, Rule 8.
-- Ju
Sure. If no services are advertised over IPv4, then we needn't offer IPv4
on the network at all. But if we do offer IPv4 on the network, it should
be stable, and not vanish at the whim of the ISP.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ted,
Ted,
On 19/07/2018 13:36, Ted Lemon wrote:
> In order for IPv6 to be useful, you need naming to work. We had this
> discussion when I brought this up last year. It should be possible for an
> IPv6-only homenet to work. But if we want homenet to be widely adopted, I
> do not think this is the correc
The trivial update protocol isn't a standard protocol, and doesn't do what
we need it to do. In order for services to be discoverable on the
homenet, they have to publish their contact info on the homenet. The
protocol that everyone uses for this is DNSSD. This is how you find your
printer wh
In order for IPv6 to be useful, you need naming to work. We had this
discussion when I brought this up last year. It should be possible for an
IPv6-only homenet to work. But if we want homenet to be widely adopted, I
do not think this is the correct default behavior: it violates the
principle of le
> All of this can be done in the DNS without resorting to any other protocol.
Excellent.
So what technical reasons are there to prefer the complexity of
draft...front-end-naming-delegation over a trivial update protocol,
whether encapsulated in HTTPS or DNS?
-- Juliusz
_
All of this can be done in the DNS without resorting to any other protocol.
_dns-update._udp SRV is registered with IANA for finding where to send
UPDATE request to if the SOA MNAME or the NS’s are not reasonable.
UPDATEs can be secured with TSIG (shared secret) or SIG(0) (public key
cryptography)
During his talk, Ted claimed that he lost all connectivity when his uplink
went down. This should not happen -- HNCP normally maintains an IPv6 ULA
that remains stable no matter what happens to DHCPv6 prefix delegations or
DHCPv4 leases. This is described in Section 6.5 of RFC 7788, and it is
the
Dear all,
Since the 1990s, people have been putting their dynamically allocated IPv4
addresses into global DNS by using a family of gratuitiously incompatible
trivial protocols. The technique doesn't have an official name (let alone
a specification), and is usually referred to as DDNS, DynDNS or
For people who have missed the Babel meeting, both David and I have done
our best to write self-contained slides. They're here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-babel-hmac-in-babel-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-babel-dtls-i
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Home Networking WG of the IETF.
Title : Homenet profile of the Babel routing protocol
Author : Juliusz Chroboczek
Filename: draft-ie
>REQ5: a Homenet implementation of Babel MUST use metrics that are of
>a similar magnitude to the values suggested in Appendix A of
>RFC 6126bis.
> "MUST" and "similar magnitude" are not a great pairing.
Fixed. This is now "must", the exact values are still SHOULD.
> I agree with th
> §2.1, REQ5: I agree with Benjamin Kaduk that " MUST use metrics that are of
>a similar magnitude" is a bit vague to be used with a MUST.
This is now "must". Exact values are still SHOULD.
> §1.1: Please consider using the 8174 boilerplate. There is at least one
> instance of a lower case k
> I do have some non-blocking comments:
Thank you very much, Alvaro.
> (1) I think that this document walks a fine line when Normatively
> referring to Appendix A in rfc6126bis given that it is an informative
> appendix.
Fixed to use non-normative language, as you suggested.
> (2) This reminds
Hi homenet,
There've been some agenda changes, to let Daniel be in 2 places at once, and
make the total allocated time add up to 90 minutes. I'll see y'all this
afternoon.
Barbara
IETF 102 - Homenet Agenda
0. Administrivia (5m)
1. WG Status Update - Chairs (2 min)
2. Outsourcing Home Network
17 matches
Mail list logo
