Le 01/09/2015 18:06, Ray Hunter a écrit :
inline
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 12/08/2015 14:20, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) a écrit :
While I pay for it, I never use the millions of WiFi access points I
can
use here in the Netherlands. I tried it once, walking in a small
city. At
the time
Donald,
Thanks for the mentioning of 802.11aa, GCR, and transmission rates to
multi-destination.
Other than these delivery mechanisms, is there something at IEEE 802.11
about building paths to be used for delivery?
I am thinking of a potential IEEE 802.11 Management Frame which
expresses
Le 12/08/2015 14:20, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) a écrit :
While I pay for it, I never use the millions of WiFi access points I can
use here in the Netherlands. I tried it once, walking in a small city. At
the time the handover was completed, the connectivity was gone.
This is a question of
There is a WG item in v6ops WG which tells the Access Point should
unicast RAs to battery-powered Clients rather than multicasting it,
because the observation is that it consumes power on the smartphone.
That's an observation reflected in more places.
The solution space is the following:
-
Le 12/08/2015 07:17, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Pat (Patricia) Thaler wrote:
Without guidance on how good the multicast packet loss rate should be,
it is difficult to define the best solution .
I'd say most applications people actually use start behaving very badly
Handovers between WiFi and self, or anything else are treated in the
mobility Working Group (dmm).
Handover is considered solved with protocols like Mobile IP, Fast MIP,
Proxy-MIP and more. Nothing stops it from running in a home
environment, other than maybe a question of where to place a
Hi,
With respect to implementation report.
Do you need DHCPv4 Subnet Allocation and/or IPv4 Router Advertisements
(RFC6656 and RFC1256)?
Alex
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Le 26/03/2015 02:35, Henning Rogge a écrit :
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Err, no. It's an A-B-C situation where each (even B) has 1
interface, and all are in an IBSS. This is the situation
described in that draft.
Are there 1
Le 26/03/2015 16:33, Ray Bellis a écrit :
On 26 Mar 2015, at 16:08, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
I also suggest that comments in this thread should consist of precise
proposed changes to the draft design team charter, not another run
round the whole discussion loop.
Le 24/03/2015 17:49, David Lamparter a écrit :
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 05:28:05PM -0500, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 24/03/2015 17:19, David Lamparter a écrit :
Before we lose this, let it be noted that we seemed to have
arrived at no for an answer to whether we want to deal with
non
Le 24/03/2015 21:01, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
On 25/03/2015 08:47, JF Tremblay wrote:
On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
[...] Make-before-break renumbering (a.k.a. planned renumbering)
is preferable but we can't rely on it. (I also try to
Le 24/03/2015 19:01, Juliusz Chroboczek a écrit :
Before we lose this, let it be noted that we seemed to have arrived
at no for an answer to whether we want to deal with
non-transitive networks, *as part of this particular routing
protocol discussion*.
This is what the protocol comparison
Le 24/03/2015 17:19, David Lamparter a écrit :
Hi Homenet chairs list,
Before we lose this, let it be noted that we seemed to have arrived
at no for an answer to whether we want to deal with non-transitive
networks, *as part of this particular routing protocol discussion*.
If I'm
Le 03/03/2015 19:41, Michael Richardson a écrit :
Ole Troan otr...@employees.org wrote:
I was planning on using ISC DHCP 4.3.1 together with an external
script as described in https://github.com/mpalmer/isc-dhcp
contrib, to detect the next hop address of my homenet router and
install the
-Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu
[mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23,
2014 12:28 AM To: Xueli; Ted Lemon; STARK, BARBARA H Cc: HOMENET
Working Group; m...@ietf.org Subject: Re: “Hybrid Access for Broadband
Networks” (WT-348)
Hello Xueli,
Several
)
{
return prefix_include(p1, plen1, p2, plen2) || prefix_include(p2,
plen2, p1, plen1);
}
Le 8 oct. 2014 à 14:13, Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com a
écrit :
Pierre, just a small doubt, but I agree with you in general.
Le 08/10/2014 13:58, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
[...]
Equality
Hello Xueli,
Several people look at this problem as an IP problem. Instead of
considering a cellular+dsl combination in a homebox, they considered
cellular+wifi on a smartphone. But the goal was the same: augment the
bandwidth perceived by the end user.
In implementation it is however
Le 16/10/2014 00:49, Ted Lemon a écrit :
On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my
backyard trapeze watching the flying wallendas instructional video
from my home jukebox, I really don't want to have my
Le 16/10/2014 00:57, Michael Thomas a écrit :
On 10/15/14, 3:49 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my
backyard trapeze watching the flying wallendas instructional
video from my
Le 09/10/2014 21:17, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
On 09/10/2014 22:29, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Thanks for updating.
Le 09/10/2014 11:26, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
Hello,
I’m proposing this change then.
1. In case the provided prefix is 64, the default consist in assigning
prefixes of length
Thanks for updating.
Le 09/10/2014 11:26, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
Hello,
I’m proposing this change then.
1. In case the provided prefix is 64, the default consist in assigning
prefixes of length 64 first.
2. I’m adding a reference to 6man-why64.
When the algorithm decides to make a new
Hi Pierre,
Le 08/10/2014 13:28, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
Hi Alex,
Reply is inlined,
Le 8 oct. 2014 à 12:09, Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com a écrit :
Hi Pierre,
Thanks for the draft update. Now I have two questions:
prefixes of size 64 are RECOMMENDED.
Why
Pierre, just a small doubt, but I agree with you in general.
Le 08/10/2014 13:58, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
[...]
Equality is never considered alone. Actually, most of the time, you
will find considerations such as: The prefix is not included or does
not include any other Assigned Prefix
Le 08/10/2014 14:15, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
Le 8 oct. 2014 à 13:58, Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com a écrit :
Hi Pierre,
Le 08/10/2014 13:28, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
Hi Alex,
Reply is inlined,
Le 8 oct. 2014 à 12:09, Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
Le 08/10/2014 14:55, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 08/10/2014 14:34, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
as I could have divided it differently, or I could have announced the
/61 in RA in the first link
Le 08/10/2014 15:14, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
[...]
Why should we mandate homenet implementations to *break* in
situations where they could work fine ? Why should we voluntarily
prevent a link from being configured if we actually can configure it
?
Sorry, there is no intention to tell networks
Le 01/08/2014 12:44, Ole Troan a écrit :
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. RIP won't. So this seems more like an
argument not to use RIP than an argument to have
Le 14/06/2014 15:44, Ray Hunter a écrit :
[...]
Does the Homenet Architecture require the routing protocol to carry
arbitrary configuration information?
[my view] No. Assuming the existence of a separate Homenet configuration
protocol, the routing protocol must facilitate auto-configuration, but
Le 20/06/2014 15:44, Gert Doering a écrit :
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 03:33:15PM +0200, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I would see a requirement about DHCP Relay-Server discovery and
configuration but I am not sure how to formulate it at architectural level.
I see a very strong need for you
Le 16/06/2014 22:18, Gert Doering a écrit :
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:09:34PM +0200, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Some deployments of IPv6 homenets with multiple IP subnets dont run
routing protocols, but static routing. I've discovered that recently
with much enthusiasm. Maybe it's just
Hi Mark, participants to homenet WG,
I have some comments, FWIW.
Le 14/06/2014 10:04, Mark Townsley a écrit :
On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:44 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com
mailto:mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Le 14/06/2014 17:49, Juliusz Chroboczek a écrit :
So even though link-local multicast may be part of the IPv6 base spec,
it may be desirable to avoid use of multicast traffic where
possible. e.g. a routing protocol could perform initial neighbor
discovery using multicast, but then switch to
Le 15/06/2014 18:03, Juliusz Chroboczek a écrit :
The inclusion of physical layer characteristics including bandwidth,
loss, and latency in path computation should be considered for
optimising communication in the homenet.
Should the text then rather say Path selection in Homenet needs to be
Le 05/02/2014 09:04, Ole Troan a écrit :
Ted,
actually, we're talking about prefix assignment. which may be
splitting hairs, but isn't quite the same as prefix delegation.
Splain? You mean we're talking about the general problem, rather
than the DHCP-PD solution? If so, that's fine, but
Le 02/02/2014 17:47, Acee Lindem a écrit :
I agree.
I disagree questioning what happens when the routing protocol finds out
that even though the delegation protocol things everything is ok and
addresses were delegated justfine the network becomes partitioned.
First, I would try to understand
Le 30/01/2014 14:03, Ole Troan a écrit :
Alex,
changing the thread since this seems to diverge from getting answers to the
questions I asked.
cheers,
Ole
On 30 Jan 2014, at 13:55 , Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Pierre,
Thanks for the reply.
Le 30/01/2014 13:46
Le 30/01/2014 22:13, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Ole Troan otr...@employees.org
mailto:otr...@employees.org wrote:
We need to decide, if we want prefix assignment and distribution of
other configuration information integrated in a routing protocol.
I
Le 31/01/2014 09:56, Ole Troan a écrit :
Teco,
I can see reasons for having shared sub-layer for routing protocol and prefix
distribution protocol. As example, in MANET we have such already: RFC 5444 and
5498. If we define a set of TLVs for border router information and prefix
distribution,
Hi,
I am also interested in this direction.
Thanks for the diagram, it illustrates well.
'Tightly couple routing protocol and prefix assignment, as well as
distribution of other configuration information'? (yes/no)
Yes.
But,
In my understanding, there is a need to couple the prefix
Le 30/01/2014 13:28, Ole Troan a écrit :
Could it be separate (existing) protocol?
if one had existed, sure.
requirements from homenet-arch (I might have missed some):
- must support multi-homing
- each link should be assigned a stable prefix
- efficient allocation of prefixes
- should
Pierre,
Thanks for the reply.
Le 30/01/2014 13:46, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
Le 30 janv. 2014 à 13:38, Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com a écrit :
Le 30/01/2014 13:28, Ole Troan a écrit :
Could it be separate (existing) protocol?
if one had existed, sure. requirements from
41 matches
Mail list logo
