> On Aug 13, 2015, at 8:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>
> I think all we have to do is delete 'on-link' in the second paragraph.
> (The 'generally' in the first paragraph allows for the exceptional
> case that Mikael was concerned about, I think.)
I'll give people a couple of days to comme
> On Aug 13, 2015, at 7:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>
> So I think the -01 draft is wrong, since it says "on-link."
What is says is
A host receives prefixes in a Router Advertisement [RFC4861], which
goes on to identify whether they are usable by SLAAC [RFC4862]
[RFC4941] [RFC7
> On Aug 12, 2015, at 5:44 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
> wrote:
>
> Ole, Mikael, could either of you please summarise the discussion you're
> having for us mere mortals? I don't understand what problem you're trying
> to solve, and I don't understand why you're distinguishing between SLAAC
> and DH
> On Aug 10, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek
> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if I read you right, but I assume you are concerned about
> what happens when a delegated prefix is retraceted. (The ISP stops the
> delegation, or the DHCPv6-PD client decides to hide the prefix from the
> rest of th
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-6man-multi-homed-host-00
Something that homenet, and specifically HNCP, might be interested to consider
is the impact of egress/SADR routing as discussed in this draft on its
recommendations. The draft is in WGLC and in need of a revised draft, so you
may
This is actually being discussed in 6man, as the chairs requested it there, but
homenet might have comments to pass along.
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From:
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-baker-6man-multi-homed-host-00.txt
> Date: August 7, 2015 at 7:40:43 AM PDT
> To:
> Reply-To:
>
>
> A
Concur. Even if it isn't discussed at a NG per se, NOGs should be polled for
the discussion. Welcome in v6ops if there isn't a better place found.
> On May 15, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Mark Townsley mailto:m...@townsley.net>>
> Date: Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 9:39 AM
My understanding, which could be wrong, is that the IESG has a long-standing
policy that a routing protocol needs to have two interoperable implementations,
written from the specification. It’s not about the SDO or the specification
(IS-IS anyone?), it’s about having proof that the specification
It seems, in each case, that the word "RECOMMEND" is far superior to "MUST". If
I connect two ports from the same router to the same LAN, I really don't
normally want them in different subnets (although from a specific reason I
might choose that). MIF tells us that we can enumerate members of th
On Oct 29, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
>
>
> Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 2014, at 11:28 PM, David Lamparter wrote:
>>
>>> What I'm personally wondering most in this regard is: to what extent
>>> will larger networks deploy
On Oct 28, 2014, at 11:28 PM, David Lamparter wrote:
> What I'm personally wondering most in this regard is: to what extent
> will larger networks deploy multiple prefixes to the hosts?
Well, define “larger”. Any network that gets a PI prefix is unlikely to deploy
multiple prefixes. The questi
On Oct 22, 2014, at 12:06 PM, David Lamparter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:40:33PM +0200, David Lamparter wrote:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-routing-extra-qualifiers/?include_text=1
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing/?in
I looked at draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases for the text I
mentioned, and you are correct: it's not there.
It is in:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-ospf-dst-src-routing-03#section-2.2
and its is-is counterpart. I'll copy that example into the use case draft.
signa
I'd like to draw your attention to a talk that will be given this morning in
homenet. The context is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases
"Requirements and Use Cases for Source/Destina
Yes, pretty much.
On Nov 5, 2013, at 6:39 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> I attended and the majority of the discussion centered on whether the
> problem could be solved with a simpler model such as a FIB per provider.
> Fred pointed out that this would not handle overlapping source subnets
On Feb 25, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <1d1732d1-ac03-450a-add2-611f2fb1c...@apple.com>, james woodyatt
> wri
> tes:
>> p3. All this pain can be traded away for the reasonably well-understood pain
>> of NAT66 and a single ULA prefix with a constant 16-bit subnet ident
On Feb 25, 2013, at 11:21 AM, james woodyatt wrote:
> Basically, we've given up on stateless router autoconfiguration in HOMENET,
> and we're forced into a stateful solution. There are no good choices here,
> and the worst case outcome is that we will force the widespread adoption of
> NAT66
On Feb 22, 2013, at 1:11 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 06:16 , Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> If the ISP with the longest prefix is alive first, then the routers
>> pick subnet-id parts that fit into that. If that ISP has provided
>> enough subnets, then even when another
inline
On Feb 23, 2013, at 12:48 AM, David Lamparter
wrote:
> For both "simple" and "full-blown" OSPFv3 the following loop/interop
> mechnisms come to my mind:
>
> 1. refusing adjacencies between SADR and non-SADR routers.
> Easily implemented with a Hello bit, this is the crowbar solution.
On Feb 23, 2013, at 3:18 AM, Michael Richardson
wrote:
> Can you elaborate the scenario where a subnet-id renumbering would be
> desireable, and would we want to actually signal this situation explicitly?
There is a BAA (a request for a research proposal) from the US Air Force for a
technolo
On Feb 23, 2013, at 3:16 AM, Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
>> "Lorenzo" == Lorenzo Colitti writes:
>>> I.e. the "0123" is identical for the two prefixes?
>>>
>
>Lorenzo> In the general case where the prefixes assigned by the
>Lorenzo> operators are of different lengths, it cannot
On Feb 22, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Fred, I'm not sure that foo-chairs@ needs to be CC'ed on this
> discussion? Having not been through your documents yet...
I wanted them to see that the discussion was happening. They have each asked me
to take some time with their work
On Feb 22, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> For a network where there is more than one ISP, is it acceptable for a CPE
> that has decided that it is PREFIX1:0123::/64, to "randomly" decide to be
> PREFIX2:0123::/64?
I don't see why not, at least in the home.
There is a case, whi
On Feb 22, 2013, at 6:22 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> In Atlanta, Mark asked Lorenzo and I to put together a draft of an approach
> to source/destination, and especially egress, routing. I pulled together a
> plan of attack that I applied to both IPv4 and IPv6, and to both IS-IS and
> OSPF and sou
In Atlanta, Mark asked Lorenzo and I to put together a draft of an approach to
source/destination, and especially egress, routing. I pulled together a plan of
attack that I applied to both IPv4 and IPv6, and to both IS-IS and OSPF and
sought review from a limited list including Lorenzo; this inc
25 matches
Mail list logo
