Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

In-line Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 7, 2019, at 2:47 AM, Gyan Mishra wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Oct 7, 2019, at 12:10 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> >> What you’ve proposed doesn’t seem like it would make things better. 7084 >> give us working ipv6 on the home network. What you

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 7, 2019, at 12:10 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > What you’ve proposed doesn’t seem like it would make things better. 7084 give > us working ipv6 on the home network. What you’re proposing would take that > away. Let’s not go in that direction. > [Gyan] Understood. I

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Hi Ted, >> Are you saying there might be gaps in HNCP? Or things we could do to make it >> more deployable? >> If it's just a matter of running code missing, I'm not sure defining >> anything else new in the IETF would help that problem. > > There are definitely missing features from the protoc

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

What you’ve proposed doesn’t seem like it would make things better. 7084 give us working ipv6 on the home network. What you’re proposing would take that away. Let’s not go in that direction. > On Oct 6, 2019, at 23:05, Gyan Mishra wrote: > ___ home

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

In line Thanks Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 6, 2019, at 6:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > >> On 07-Oct-19 11:34, Mark Smith wrote: >> Perhaps ANIMA is an alternative? It has seemed to me that home networks >> might be just a more specific case of autonomic networks. > > ...for profess

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 6, 2019, at 17:46, Michael Thomas wrote: > If the protocol is not truly plug and play in reality... wasn't that the > entire premise? That doesn't sound like an ops problem. I understand that > openwrt is a wonk box, but still if there isn't default configuration that > would make it tru

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On 07-Oct-19 11:34, Mark Smith wrote: > Perhaps ANIMA is an alternative? It has seemed to me that home networks might > be just a more specific case of autonomic networks. ...for professionally managed networks. So there would be new work to do, if we wanted to expand the scope. > > For exampl

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On 10/6/19 2:41 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Oct 6, 2019, at 10:58 AM, Ole Troan > wrote: Are you saying there might be gaps in HNCP? Or things we could do to make it more deployable? If it's just a matter of running code missing, I'm not sure defining anything else new

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Perhaps ANIMA is an alternative? It has seemed to me that home networks might be just a more specific case of autonomic networks. For example, they've been defining a Generic Autonomic Signalling Protocol (GRASP). https://tools.ietf.org/wg/anima/ Brian Carpenter has been working on an implementa

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 6, 2019, at 10:58 AM, Ole Troan wrote: > Are you saying there might be gaps in HNCP? Or things we could do to make it > more deployable? > If it's just a matter of running code missing, I'm not sure defining anything > else new in the IETF would help that problem. There are definitely mi

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Homenet has solved the problem of self-configuring networks in arbitrary topologies. >>> >>> If that were true, I wouldn’t be asking this question. We’re still >>> chugging along, but we don’t have something that nay router vender could >>> even consider shipping right now. There isn