; pointing out that if we leave this to chance, we haven't really solved the
> problem.)
>
> ___
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
--
Andrew McGregor | SRE | andrewm...@google.com | +61 4 1071 2221
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
several different vendors), the 3800
> had among the most secure default settings: It doesn't allow someone
> to take ownership of the device using a well-known password through a Wi-Fi
> interface.
>
> Mark
>
> __
DAD could be interpreted to mean, not the specific method defined in the
IPv6 RFCs, but 'some way of detecting duplicate addresses that is likely to
work in this situation'.
However, given that DAD as deployed doesn't work due to hidden nodes, this
becomes an extra requirement on APs and other wir
So, I believe you could do this: use one SSID for meshing routers and a
different one for clients (possibly hiding the mesh from the clients to
avoid end-user confusion).
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2013, at 1:07 AM, Andrew McGregor wrote:
>
>
I actually think that some MANET technologies are applicable here... I
don't recall what happened to its standardisation process, but wOSPF has a
lot of nice properties here, not least being that we have homenet
considering an OSPF based solution, and wOSPF provides the necessary
mechanics to deal
Ah, that makes much more sense.
That's true, however there are some existing solutions that partially work,
and I don't think them bad. Limited, yes, but not bad. So it isn't crazy
to think of extending them.
Andrew
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 03/13/2013 09:2
I've met one that will allocate more /48s if you ask, and have met a DHCPv6
server implementation that would give you a new prefix if you generated a
new client ID. So, yes, they easily can exist and in at least one case do.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>
> On 11 Mar 2013,
Also, we need to distinguish between a deployment that will hand out
exactly one /64 (broken) and one that will hand out multiple /64s on
request, just not necessarily contiguous (strange, but not so broken).
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I am a bit skeptical that we don't
I have a /48 at home, on a retail ISP, right now. I know, one data point does
not a trend make, but it is a proof by example that some ISP is doing that.
Andrew
On 15/11/2012, at 6:27 AM, Randy Turner wrote:
>
> Have their been any ISPs that have come forward to discuss their consumer
> IPv
Proxy-ND doesn't seem hard... much less evil than NAT, after all.
Andrew
On 9/11/2012, at 2:56 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew McGregor writes:
>Andrew> This whole thread is making me think that specifying that we
>
tocol, I don't think we want to inject a /128
> advertisement for every device in the homenet into the homenet routing domain.
> Acee
> On Nov 8, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Andrew McGregor wrote:
>
>> This whole thread is making me think that specifying that we use either
>>
This whole thread is making me think that specifying that we use either babel
(with attention to getting it documented properly) or one of the OSPFv4 MANET
extensions, in the case where we have only a /64 and perhaps any time we find
we have an 802.11s, ad-hoc or NBMA interface in play. That wa
On 8/11/2012, at 11:17 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
>
> Op 8 nov. 2012, om 16:56 heeft Acee Lindem het volgende geschreven:
>
>> I noticed it had been reduced from minutes to 30 seconds in this version. I
>> guess that rules out RIPng. Since this is a new specification we'll take
>> lower hello/dea
On 7/11/2012, at 12:32 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Andrew McGregor wrote:
>> But that's single-delegating-router, not recursive.
>
> What is a "recursive delegating router," and why do you want one?
>
In general, I don't think you
On 7/11/2012, at 11:20 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Andrew McGregor wrote:
>> Recursive PD seems to inherently need some administrative input. BTW, our
>> switch implementation can do either.
>
> I don't see what admin input it requires.
Nice. Yes, that's a reasonable way to do that.
Recursive PD seems to inherently need some administrative input. BTW, our
switch implementation can do either.
Andrew
On 7/11/2012, at 10:51 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Clarifying my remarks at the mic...
>
> Using PD in a home network isn't hard
In fact, my connection in NZ gives me a /48 via DHCPv6 PD, although some
providers I gather are doing /56.
Andrew
On 2/10/2012, at 10:41 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> I have been tracking this conversation for a while, excuse the top post.
>
> 0) The state of cable modems is rather dismal as yet, wi
17 matches
Mail list logo
