On 8/11/15, 5:17 PM, "homenet on behalf of Juliusz Chroboczek"
wrote:
>> I am interested to learn what people think about whether equal-cost
>> multi-path routes are needed in homenet. Given the previous discussion
>> about parallel wireless links - which I know I have in my house and
>>can't
>
Hi Alia,
On Aug 5, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Alia Atlas
mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Mikael,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson
mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se>> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Toerless Eckert (eckert) wrote:
Still sucks to tweak a routing protocol design for a broken l2 d
Hey Dino,
On 8/5/15, 1:01 PM, "homenet on behalf of Dino Farinacci"
wrote:
>There are a lot of things wrong in the IETF. And there are some good
>things about the IETF.
>
>Let’s just keep the discussions technical. We may have to be subjective,
>but that is the right of openness. But folks shou
On Jul 29, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Ted Lemon
mailto:mel...@fugue.com>> wrote:
On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Dave Taht
mailto:dave.t...@gmail.com>> wrote:
a bit offtopic, it would be good to have IANA assign some port numbers
soon, if they have not already. (?)
The way to do this would be for the cha
On 3/5/15, 2:46 PM, "Juliusz Chroboczek"
wrote:
>> Or more generally, how does a stub router know that it's a stub router,
>> when there is no human to tell it so?
>
>Yeah, it's not very clear. We were actually asked to describe the two
>protocols' support for stub networks, and nobody never t
Hi Curtis,
The main reason for going forward with IS-IS over OSPFv3 is that there was
an open source implementation willing to implement and support all the
enhancements necessary for Homenet. Admittedly, the source/destination
routing requirement makes the entrance barrier a bit higher for OSPFv3
On 2/18/15, 9:52 AM, "Juliusz Chroboczek"
wrote:
>>> - Babel will avoid creating loops even when reconverging, but might
>>> create blackholes; IS-IS will collapse during reconvergence;
>
>> I would say the IS-IS will create micro-loops and blackholes during
>> reconvergence. I wouldn¹t say it w
On 2/18/15, 9:19 AM, "Juliusz Chroboczek"
wrote:
>> I also think there should also be more explicit links back into the
>> Homenet Architecture document
>[...]
>> Perhaps a table with "complies" "does not comply" or "partially
>>complies"
>> per paragraph or phrase?
>
>Good point. Here's a qui
Who contributed the ISIS implementation in Erlang? I must admit I haven¹t
followed it closely but I thought all the quagga work was C or C++?
On 12/5/14, 8:29 AM, "Markus Stenberg" wrote:
>On 23.11.2014, at 23.53, Juliusz Chroboczek
> wrote:
>>> sbabeld doesn't speak to the kernel itself, it exe
Hi Juliusz,
I think I understand. If there is the potential for a loop (advertised
distance >= babel router’s former distance), babel will wait for the next
sequenced route from the source. So, the loop-free guarantee is at the expense
of potentially faster convergence. Correct?
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/18/14, 1:46 AM, "Teco Boot" wrote:
>
>> Op 17 nov. 2014, om 17:53 heeft Margaret Wasserman
>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2014, at 8:44 PM, Teco Boot wrote:
>>> It could be long enough to get in trouble. There could be more than
>>>two neighbors, loaded wireless links
Right - the net is that the constrained devices need not run the chosen
routing protocol so we don’t need to be counting bits for this exercise.
On 11/15/14, 4:34 PM, "Pierre Pfister" wrote:
>Hello Juliusz,
>
>Please have a look at proposal #1 in the pdf Mark joined to this thread’s
>first mail.
While we didn¹t spend a lot of time on it in Thursday¹s meeting, it was
proposed that the IoT device domain would never be used for transit so it
only needed to get a default (or other aggregate) and inject a prefix and
the HNCP could be made to satisfy this requirement.
On 11/15/14, 10:36 AM, "Ju
On 11/15/14, 7:57 AM, "Margaret Wasserman" wrote:
>
>On Nov 15, 2014, at 7:40 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
> wrote:
>> Mark, please scratch my previous offer to implement a stub-only variant
>>of
>> Babel. Please let me know how much flash and RAM you give me, and I'll
>> do my best to fit Babel into
On 10/4/14, 10:16 PM, "Brian E Carpenter"
wrote:
>On 05/10/2014 09:24, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> Right - but we still have to agree on the admin or, as you put it,
>> ownership model. At least one of the proposal for autonomic networking
>>is
>>
ure their Wi-Fi Protected Access. Some ceremonies
>work to improve privacy and security.
>
>The home network needs to be owned by the home user(s) or agent (could
>be the ISP or some over-the-top retail solution, etc.).
>
>Mark
>
>On Oct 3, 2014, at 6:39 AM, Acee Lindem (acee)
One thing we need to do in homenet is agree on the network administration
model. I believe many of us started with the assumption of plug and play
but are now accepting the fact that minimal configuration will be required
to vet devices on the homenet. If we can agree on similar network admin
model
I agree with this direction. This will also let the work HCNP and Security
Threats/Requirements to go on in parallel. Of course, HCNP security may
need to be revisited once the latter is agreed upon.
Thanks,
Acee
On 9/21/14, 3:22 PM, "Mark Baugher" wrote:
>
>On Sep 20, 2014, at 12:57 AM, Steven
See one inline belowŠ
On 9/17/14, 6:40 PM, "Brian E Carpenter"
wrote:
>On 18/09/2014 02:58, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> On 09/16/2014 11:31 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>> As was presented in.. err, London?, shared secrets are bad. To really
>>> do this properly, we need device specific keys and
I agree with Markus. The conflicting goals of self-configuration and
security seem to be a recurring theme in homenet. I reread the security
section in the ³Homenet Architecture² and it mainly covers with security
at the edges (which presumes effective edge detection). There is this
statement regar
On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
>
>
> On 9/10/14 11:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>>
>>> My point was the even if this draft is accepted by 6MAN, standardized,
>>> and even imple
On Sep 10, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
>> I’ve heard it said over and over in HOMENET sessions that we weren’t going
>> to put new requirements on the host stacks. Why is this draft interesting?
>
>
On Sep 10, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Ray Bellis
mailto:ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk>> wrote:
I've just noticed this draft, and thought it worth bringing to the HOMENET WG's
attention:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-00
I’ve heard it said over and over in HOMENET sessions that
Support the prefix assignment draft. I think it would be instructive to include
the TLVs from the prior draft as a conceptual implementation.
Thanks,
Acee
On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Markus Stenberg wrote:
> +1 on the PA draft.
>
> While it could use some editing, having implemented histori
On 8/1/14, 12:47 PM, "Juliusz Chroboczek"
wrote:
>> Given the current RIPng standard timers, it could also be argued that
>> RIPng, as specified, doesn't meet the convergence requirements.
>
>>Minimising convergence time should be a goal in any routed
>>environment. It is reasonable to
On 8/1/14, 2:10 AM, "Markus Stenberg" wrote:
>On 1.8.2014, at 4.03, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> Ted Lemon wrote:
>>> It seems to me that you are grasping for a use case to justify a split
>>> where none is needed. Protocols like OSPF, IS-IS and Babel would all
>>> work in both environments.
On 7/25/14, 3:31 PM, "Juliusz Chroboczek"
wrote:
>RJ,
>
>If I understand you right, you're pushing for an approach where we don't
>say anything about the routing protocol, and wait for the market to
>converge on RIPng, thus ensuring interoperability. Please correct me if
>I've misunderstood yo
27 matches
Mail list logo
