Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

This still doesn’t address the problem that the HNCP packet needs to be fragmented. Fragmented Multicast doesn’t scale well. > On Sep 18, 2019, at 19:09, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > >  >> >> If you have a discontinuous L2 MTU, you do not need fragmented packets >> to see packets disappear. >

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

> If you have a discontinuous L2 MTU, you do not need fragmented packets > to see packets disappear. Ah, I see. > No fragmentation of any sort involved, just incorrectly set up L2 segments. Right. It's an incorrect network setup. To fix that, it should be enough to point the tunnel directly at

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

> The problem is, how’d the packet get so big that it was fragmented? HNCP relies on network-layer fragmentation: it uses UDP and has no application-layer mechanism for fragmenting large TLVs. See Section 4.2 and Appendix B.2 of RFC 7787. (I seem to recall that an earlier version of DNCP include

Re: [homenet] DoH??

On 18/09/2019 23:51, Ted Lemon wrote: > Let’s not discuss this here. This is a topic for add. Yes. The ADD list was setup for that discussion (and exploded). A review of it's archive [1] might be eye opening, if tedious. Cheers, S. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/ > >> On

Re: [homenet] DoH??

Let’s not discuss this here. This is a topic for add. > On Sep 18, 2019, at 18:27, Michael Thomas wrote: > ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] DoH??

On 9/18/19 3:12 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Sep 18, 2019, at 6:07 PM, Michael Thomas > wrote: So I'm a little unclear about the specifics of Firefox using DNS over HTTP, but wouldn't this affect homenet naming, or any split horizon kind of naming? In order for DoH to not bre

Re: [homenet] DoH??

Hiya, On 18/09/2019 23:07, Michael Thomas wrote: > > So I'm a little unclear about the specifics of Firefox using DNS over > HTTP, but wouldn't this affect homenet naming, or any split horizon kind > of naming? FWIW, I just tested with FF nightly in my home n/w for a name that is locally resolv

Re: [homenet] DoH??

On Sep 18, 2019, at 6:07 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > So I'm a little unclear about the specifics of Firefox using DNS over HTTP, > but wouldn't this affect homenet naming, or any split horizon kind of naming? In order for DoH to not break lots of things, it has to be implemented in such a way t

[homenet] DoH??

So I'm a little unclear about the specifics of Firefox using DNS over HTTP, but wouldn't this affect homenet naming, or any split horizon kind of naming? Mike ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

On Sep 18, 2019, at 4:57 PM, Gert Doering wrote: >> The problem is, how???d the packet get so big that it was fragmented? > If you have a discontinuous L2 MTU, you do not need fragmented packets > to see packets disappear. That’s kind of a non-sequitur. The packet would need to be fragmented in

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Hi, On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 04:05:39PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Sep 18, 2019, at 3:39 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > Is that not a bug? > The problem is, how???d the packet get so big that it was fragmented? If you have a discontinuous L2 MTU, you do not need fragmented packets to see pac

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

On Sep 18, 2019, at 3:39 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Is that not a bug? The problem is, how’d the packet get so big that it was fragmented? ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

> The L2TPv3 tunnel has a lower MTU than the local LAN, and does not report ICMP > PTB, so HNCP packets in one direction get through, but replies get dropped. Is that not a bug? -- Juliusz ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: > First observation: Running HNCP over L2TPv3 breaks HCNP because L2TPv3 breaks > UDP fragmentation (works as designed). > The L2TPv3 tunnel has a lower MTU than the local LAN, and does not report > ICMP PTB, so HNCP packets in one direction get through

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Mark Andrews wrote on 18/09/2019 12:00: Question: As a simple mitigation, is there any way of manually signalling to the kernel that ALL UDP packets on port 8231 should assume an PMTU of 1280 octets? setsockopt(IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU=1); from RFC 3542 works provided the OS has implemented it. It

Re: [homenet] appropriateness of draft-shytyi-opsawg-vysm-03 to homenet WG?

That diagram isn’t consistent with what Homenet has been trying to build: it appears to be a base assumption of this work that there is a single virtual CPE router, and that’s not a homenet problem. > On Sep 18, 2019, at 4:14 AM, Alexandre Petrescu > wrote: > > > > Le 17/09/2019 à 15:34, Te

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

> On 18 Sep 2019, at 5:36 pm, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been experimenting with Homenet before looking at enhancing HNCP for > extended naming functionality (the current implementation only covers > resolver configuration and not name server configuration). > > During my te

Re: [homenet] appropriateness of draft-shytyi-opsawg-vysm-03 to homenet WG?

Le 17/09/2019 à 15:34, Ted Lemon a écrit : On Sep 17, 2019, at 9:29 AM, Alexandre Petrescu mailto:alexandre.petre...@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks for the reply. As I do not author the draft, and my colleague is not subscribed to this list, I paste here his reply to your question: It is not r

[homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Hi, I've been experimenting with Homenet before looking at enhancing HNCP for extended naming functionality (the current implementation only covers resolver configuration and not name server configuration). During my testing I managed to break HNCP, so that it got stuck in a state where it d