Re: [homenet] naming drafts

Stephen Farrell wrote on 07/06/2021 21:32: Hi Michael, On 05/06/2021 19:46, Michael Richardson wrote: Well, I'd be happy to discuss with this them again, but they'd have to actually tell us what "DDNS" really is for them. Just to clarify: I don't think/claim DDNS is "better" than the propo

Re: [homenet] [dhcwg] WGLC started -- draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12

Hi Ted, thanks for the comment. I agree. Plus one more point. The ISP hosts the reverse zone. The ISP also controls any reverse zone to customer assignments, and is in control of any renumbering. The ISP may therefore choose to simply wipe any reverse zone content after renumbering occurs. T

Re: [homenet] draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-08

Hi Daniel, I have a question both for this draft and our "own" Homenet draft Up until now we've been passing the specification of the DM * Reverse DM connections via separate configuration parameters: address/name, port number, and transport protocol. Should we instead be using a DNS URI fro

Re: [homenet] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-08.txt

Hi Daniel, Thanks for publishing this draft. I have a three comments/concerns. Firstly: "this option is also defined in [I-D.ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6]." I just want to clarify that you are going to provide a new option code, but with the identical semantics. I do think you need a separate code to

Re: [homenet] biggest L2 domain

Gert Doering wrote on 13/12/2019 18:26: Hi, On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 09:54:08AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: I thought that we wrote somewhere in RFC7368 that the Homenet router should collect as many ports as possible together into a single L2 zone. I can't find that text right now. Did i

Re: [homenet] outsourcing architecture [meeting notes]

Hi Daniel, Here's my input where there wasn't time to provide at the mic in the meeting. Daniel Migault wrote on 19/11/2019 10:36: Hi, So my notes/comments regarding the feedbacks received are: * mentioning the work on axfr over tls No problem with referencing this and it's helpful feedback

Re: [homenet] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09.txt

Dave Taht wrote on 23/10/2019 08:56: has anyone here had much chance to review this? Thanks for the prompt. From a pure Homenet perspective, it reinforces that L3 routing is the correct solution for segmenting networks where end nodes have different characteristics. e.g. battery powered or

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote on 20/09/2019 14:23: 1) DNCP allows an option of whether a network state TLV contains optional nested payload (HNCP) TLV's or not. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. RFC 7787 Section 7.2.2. A OK so you're saying this is already covered in (Section 4.4 of) 7787 [..

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Thanks for your response. Juliusz Chroboczek wrote on 20/09/2019 12:40: 1) DNCP allows an option of whether a network state TLV contains optional nested payload (HNCP) TLV's or not. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. RFC 7787 Section 7.2.2. The Network-State TLV only contains the network st

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote on 19/09/2019 01:02: The problem is, how’d the packet get so big that it was fragmented? HNCP relies on network-layer fragmentation: it uses UDP and has no application-layer mechanism for fragmenting large TLVs. See Section 4.2 and Appendix B.2 of RFC 7787. Agreed. I'm

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Mark Andrews wrote on 18/09/2019 12:00: Question: As a simple mitigation, is there any way of manually signalling to the kernel that ALL UDP packets on port 8231 should assume an PMTU of 1280 octets? setsockopt(IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU=1); from RFC 3542 works provided the OS has implemented it. It

[homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Hi, I've been experimenting with Homenet before looking at enhancing HNCP for extended naming functionality (the current implementation only covers resolver configuration and not name server configuration). During my testing I managed to break HNCP, so that it got stuck in a state where it d

Re: [homenet] IPv6 & firewall config in a home net

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote on 06/09/2019 08:59: On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: IMHO Expected behavior. Many European data protection people consider an IP(v6) address to be privacy-sensitive personal data. That will likely mean regular renumbering of IA PD by ISP's as the

Re: [homenet] IPv6 & firewall config in a home net

Ted Lemon wrote on 05/09/2019 18:31: On Sep 2, 2019, at 1:47 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: Assuming that the prefix change is make-before-break (which we do not clearly know how to do on the WAN side, I think), then the web server should configure with the same rfc7212 IID, but a new prefix.

Re: [homenet] IPv6 & firewall config in a home net

mal.hub...@bt.com wrote on 02/09/2019 17:55: Hey, Mal here. IETF attendee since 2012 ;) I have a home networking question with respect to IPv6 standards, I’m hoping to use you as a sounding board first before I take it to v6ops. The scenario here is a home / soho network situation where t

Re: [homenet] [EXT] securing zone transfer

Hi, Ted made a valid point about "running code" in this thread. So I've been experimenting with various configurations. My conclusions: 1) We definitely need to properly secure communication between the HNA and the DM for control traffic. This needs to be an explicit part of the draft. 2)

Re: [homenet] securing zone transfer

Michael Richardson wrote on 13/06/2019 03:25: Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Are you assuming here there's a central Homenet controller that presents > a web interface where the "house owner" can choose which names get > published? No, we are assuming that there are one or more ho

Re: [homenet] securing zone transfer

Inline. Long post. Juliusz Chroboczek wrote on 12/06/2019 04:03: Actually, it's fatal, because you can't get a certificate for "boombox.local" so you can't secure it that way. So you always have to use the FQDN. That sucks, of course, but the problem is completely unrelated to being published

Re: [homenet] [EXT] securing zone transfer

Thanks for the feedback. > first, the gateway does not know for sure which external NS are use by the secondary DNS service, Agreed. The draft needs to address how the service is boot-strapped and auto-configred. > second the IPs of the WAN port might not be the internet facing IPs and thi

Re: [homenet] primary / secondary configuration

Daniel Migault wrote on 07/06/2019 22:27: Hi, We are looking for a simple way to configure the primary / secondary DNS setting between the homenet and the outsourcing infrastructure. The exchange of these information is done over a secure channel - let say TLS. While we coudl re-define a co

Re: [homenet] securing zone transfer

Ted Lemon wrote on 08/06/2019 05:50: On Jun 7, 2019, at 11:36 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: Can we use TLS for authorization, assuming that we have trusted certificates at both ends?  Perhaps this is more of a: did anyone implement this? How is trust establish

Re: [homenet] About Ted's naming architecture presentation and document

james woodyatt wrote: On Nov 16, 2016, at 17:31, Michael Richardson > wrote: But, do you agree that publishing your home lighting controller to the DNS is how you manage to control your lights from your phone when you are out of wifi distance, as you roam to 3G. (

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

also not based on the actual chosen ULA in use, which is not easy to generate. Ray Hunter (v6ops) <mailto:v6...@globis.net> 14 May 2016 14:51 Ted Lemon wrote: If devices publish keys, then you can use those keys to make sure you are still talking to them. And the dnssec validation

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

:45, "Ray Hunter (v6ops)" <mailto:v6...@globis.net>> wrote: Ted Lemon <mailto:mel...@fugue.com> 12 May 2016 15:48 As long as the renumbering process is clean, there is no downside to renumbering, and no reason to be careful about which ULA you

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Ted Lemon 12 May 2016 15:48 As long as the renumbering process is clean, there is no downside to renumbering, and no reason to be careful about which ULA you ultimately wind up with. So are you suggesting the Homenet (internal) namespace should be independent of UL

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Juliusz Chroboczek 12 May 2016 15:10 If I'm reading you correctly, Ray, you're promoting unstable naming. Not promoting. Looking at the consequences. If I have two routers called trurl and pirx in my network, then my printer will becalled diablo630.pi

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Ted Lemon 11 May 2016 20:03 DNS update is pretty simple. Any problem with using that? Not with the update mechanism itself I think you may be slightly conclusing "authoritative" and "primary." There is no need to elect authoritative servers--just make them sec

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Juliusz Chroboczek 11 May 2016 18:29 Bonjour is (roughly) based on Appletalk AFAIK. I've got nothing against Appletalk Phase II, so if Bonjour was extended to provide an equivalent function to Appletalk Phase II Zone Information Protocol = ZIP then I'd b

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Ted Lemon 11 May 2016 18:37 > I don't like the hybrid proxy model either. It promises the union of > the problems and intersection of the functionality. Proxying flies in > the face of the trend of smart devices and dumb networks. Very well put.

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

On 11 May 2016, at 15:01, Ray Hunter (v6ops) <mailto:v6...@globis.net>> wrote: Tim Chown wrote: On 25 Apr 2016, at 03:39, Ted Lemon <mailto:mel...@fugue.com>> wrote: On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <mailto:j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>>

Re: [homenet] Updating DNS [was: How many people have installed the homenet code?]

Tim Chown wrote: On 25 Apr 2016, at 03:39, Ted Lemon > wrote: On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek > wrote: > Juliusz, the problem is that existing home network devices that do > DNS-based service discov

Re: [homenet] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-lemon-homenet-naming-architecture-00.txt

see below. Ted Lemon wrote: I've published a straw-man homenet naming architecture document for discussion at IETF in Buenos Aires. This document is a first attempt, and represents just my thoughts, not the thoughts of the architecture team as a whole, because I didn't get it out in time for

Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for draft-barth-homenet-wifi-roaming-00.txt

Mikael Abrahamsson <mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se> 30 Nov 2015 08:33 On Fri, 27 Nov 2015, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: How would you "move a /64 around"? Well, the same way you would move a /128 around I guess. Not sure that's correct. When moving a /64 per host you have

Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for draft-barth-homenet-wifi-roaming-00.txt

Mikael Abrahamsson <mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se> 30 Nov 2015 08:33 On Fri, 27 Nov 2015, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: How would you "move a /64 around"? Well, the same way you would move a /128 around I guess. Not sure that's correct. When moving a /64 per host you have

Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for draft-barth-homenet-wifi-roaming-00.txt

Mikael Abrahamsson <mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se> 26 Nov 2015 16:15 On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: I have read this draft and find it interesting. The use of host routes would seem appealing to avoid 1) any need for stateful "home agent" and multiple forwarding 2

Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for draft-barth-homenet-wifi-roaming-00.txt

Alexandre Petrescu wrote: Hi, Using host-based routes in a homenet to support mobility (rather than Mobile IP) may make sense because the domain is relatively small. The draft could benefit from illustrating at least a simple topology, to understand what the author really means, because th

Re: [homenet] WiFi handover [was: question: equal-cost multipath?]

Alexandru Petrescu <mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> 2 Sep 2015 11:31 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 us

Re: [homenet] WiFi handover [was: question: equal-cost multipath?]

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 the handover was completed, the connectivity

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

STARK, BARBARA H 1 Sep 2015 12:23 and that is also not covered in DNS-SD AFAICS. As a potential end user of homenet (i.e., within my personal home network), I very much do *not* want any of my IoT devices, printers, or scanners to be publicly discoverable via DNS. If

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

Michael Thomas wrote: On 08/31/2015 04:42 AM, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote: Juliusz (and others) have objected to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options because it appears to be tied to the ISP. Yet for reverse resolution, the ISP is an essential

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

Erik Kline wrote: On 26 August 2015 at 15:41, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: Can we just go with whichever recommendations come out of dnssd? https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnssd/charter/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnssd/documents/ Could you perhaps point me at a specific paragr

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: how DNS can be bootstrapped and parent domains delegated to a Homenet Border Router. I think we're speaking about different things. You're speaking about exporting the naming of the Homenet into the ISP (the single ISP, sigh) and from there into the global DNS, whil

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

Markus Stenberg wrote: On 26.8.2015, at 16.17, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: I guess we might as well simply recommend MDNS Fair enough, assuming there is mDNS proxying in the Homenet. (Or should we be speaking on ff05::fb and counting on Pierre to do some magic?) It is not really an option

Re: [homenet] WiFi handover [was: question: equal-cost multipath?]

Teco Boot wrote: Op 12 aug. 2015, om 12:27 heeft Juliusz Chroboczek het volgende geschreven: I still think the Homenet WG should pay far more attention to seamless WiFi handover, We're currently working on that with the WLAN-SI guys. They've got a nationwide mesh network (it's a small cou

Re: [homenet] question: equal-cost multipath?

Alia Atlas 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 use - I've been wondering if these have been considered. EC

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

Mikael Abrahamsson <mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se> 5 August 2015 08:50 On Tue, 4 Aug 2015, Ray Hunter wrote: As someone who spent rather a lot of time wordsmithing Section 3.5 of RFC7368 into something that could reach rough consensus, I find this discussion rather depressing. Section 3.5 w

Re: [homenet] some IS-IS questions

Markus Stenberg wrote: On 29.7.2015, at 17.35, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: Perfect! Thanks. I'd missed that. Yes, that's exactly what I was looking for. So when the Design Team compares IS-IS to Babel, they really should be comparinghttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lamparter-homenet-isis-prof

Re: [homenet] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-02.txt

Daniel Migault wrote: Hi, I believe draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation [1] , draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options [2] have addressed all comments we received so far. I believe these document are ready. draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-02 addresses the

Re: [homenet] Selecting a routing protocol for HOMENET

Ralph Droms wrote: On Apr 7, 2015, at 6:47 AM 4/7/15, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: The DT will be chartered as below. I find the lack of the words "working code", "implementation experience" or "experimental data" somewhat disquieting. +1 I'd like to see a DT with hands on experience of runni

Re: [homenet] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-01.txt

Apologies for the very late reply: change weekends. Daniel Migault 20 March 2015 20:55 Hi Ray, Please see my comments in text. I think the description of the requirements and overall chain of events is excellent. Thanks for that. However I'm not partic

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-03.txt

Thanks for the reply. See inline. Pierre Pfister 18 March 2015 07:46 Hello Ray, Thanks for the comments, and for making these experimentations. Comments inline, OK Got it. Thanks. Another question. I've been testing with smaller prefixes than that required t

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-03.txt

Pierre Pfister 14 March 2015 09:10 Hello Ray, Thanks for the review. Their actually is something about that already. Sub-delegation is one of the purposes of the so called « Private Links » Private Link: A Private Link is an abstract concept defined for the s

Re: [homenet] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-01.txt

Daniel Migault 16 March 2015 02:48 Hi, Thank you for the feed back. Here is an update of the renumbering section. I considered the two cases make-before-break and break-before-make. Feel free to make any comment. BR, Daniel 9 Renumbering This section details ho

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-03.txt

Steven Barth 12 March 2015 18:11 I have read this draft. It looks very good. I agree (having reviewed probably all the various iterations of that document). I have the following questions: 1. What are the interoperability considerations if the node also contains

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-03.txt

I have read this draft. It looks very good. I have the following questions: 1. What are the interoperability considerations if the node also contains (historical) configuration for acting as an RFC7084 router? Especially with respect to requirement L2 and L8. I came across this whilst testin

Re: [homenet] Stub networks [draft-mrw-homenet-rtg-comparison-02.txt]

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 told us which of the many definit

Re: [homenet] 6renum redux [Routing protocol comparison document]

Ted Lemon 4 March 2015 16:20 I think you want an explicit update process for the glue records that is triggered by the DHCP server deprecating the old address. This would be related to how glue records are set up initially. The current document doesn't actually say an

Re: [homenet] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-01.txt

Daniel Migault wrote: Hi, Please find the new version of DHCP Options for Homenet Naming Architecture . The issue raised on the previous version was how these options were compatible with multiple ISPs.

Re: [homenet] 6renum redux [Routing protocol comparison document]

Mark Andrews <mailto:ma...@isc.org> 4 March 2015 08:04 In message<54f6aace.3030...@globis.net>, Ray Hunter writes: Ted Lemon<mailto:mel...@fugue.com> 4 March 2015 03:21 On Mar 3, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Ray Hunter wrote: One hour TTL could mean 24 times the DNS traffic compare

Re: [homenet] 6renum redux [Routing protocol comparison document]

Ted Lemon <mailto:mel...@fugue.com> 4 March 2015 03:21 On Mar 3, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Ray Hunter wrote: One hour TTL could mean 24 times the DNS traffic compared to that historic norm. It also could mean (re)signing DNSSEC zones more than 24 times per day as hosts move around the h

Re: [homenet] 6renum redux [Routing protocol comparison document]

Ted Lemon 3 March 2015 20:36 Why do you say that? Is a ~60 minute TTL too short for a home device? I don't think so. As soon as the old address is deprecated, you remove the record pointing to it--you don't keep it around. You install records only for non-depreca

Re: [homenet] 6renum redux [Routing protocol comparison document]

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Michael Sweet wrote: True, but most video conferencing software and live video feeds handle disconnects gracefully (enough) already, and most streaming video is not done using a single file/URL but with a series of files/URLs, with each file/URL

[homenet] Prefix Delegation, routing on the last hop ISP router, and draft-stenberg-v6ops-pd-route-maintenance-00

Following question may strictly speaking be out of scope for Homenet, as it is about the WAN side interface and interaction with the upstream ISP router. Whilst setting up my own HNCP testbed, I was attempting to configure my own "last-hop ISP router" assuming a customer-owned Homenet router

Re: [homenet] A poll

Dave Taht wrote: The homenet working group has been laboring for several years now to find ways to make ipv6 more deployable to home (and presumably small business) users. In addition to multiple specification documents some code has been produced to try and make things easier. At least in the

Re: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Teco Boot wrote: Back to the subject: What are the requirements of a high performance WiFi home network to the homenet routing protocol? I guess we don't know. Within the current framework to solve this problem with what exists today when it co

Re: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document

Mark Townsley wrote: Dear WG, In Hawaii, Margaret offered to pull together a document providing a summary of ISIS and Babel within the context of homenet. Working with Chris Hopps and Juliusz Chroboczek, Margaret just posted draft-mrw-homenet-rtg-comparison-01.txt. Many thanks to all 3 aut

Re: [homenet] dst/src routing drafts (for IETF-91 rtgwg)

Fred Baker (fred) <mailto:f...@cisco.com> 29 October 2014 17:09 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 netw

Re: [homenet] dst/src routing drafts (for IETF-91 rtgwg)

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 multiple prefixes to the hosts? Well, define “larger”. Any network that gets a PI prefix is unlikely to deploy mul

Re: [homenet] Comments requested for draft CER-ID

David R Oran wrote: Silly question: Isn’t the border defined by a link and not a router? What if you have uplinks to two different ISPs on the same router? This seems to assume there’s only one border link on a router, and that router connects to only one external entity. Indeed. The draf

Re: [homenet] Securing HNCP - comments?

Markus Stenberg <mailto:markus.stenb...@iki.fi> 30 June 2014 09:31 On 28.6.2014, at 10.43, Ray Hunter wrote: How could [4] be prevented then? In ascending order of complexity.. [S4-1] Manual configuration of categories overriding automated border discovery. Defining either in the

Re: [homenet] Securing HNCP - comments?

inline Markus Stenberg wrote: (This could have been a draft too, but I’m starting my vacation soon and I don’t want to post any more of those. Sorry.-Markus) Current HNCP draft specifies security very vaguely, as it was originally based on just some napkin thoughts last year on ‘it would be n

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Tim Chown 17 June 2014 18:11 Hi Ray, I like your questions, and I think many of your own suggested answers to your questions are in line with what I believe the WG has assumed in its discussions. I find myself in agreement with most (and perhaps all) of them. Gla

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: "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 more sophisticated tha

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: 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 unicast when maintaining indi

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Juliusz Chroboczek 14 June 2014 16:25 Is a specific update address preferred? [my view] The routing protocol should support both use of unicast and multicast updates. Please clarify. Are you saying that the routing protocol must be able to run over lin

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Tim Chown wrote: On 13 Jun 2014, at 14:57, Ted Lemon > wrote: On Jun 13, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti > wrote: Not to me they didn't. Seriously - if you understand what we're being asked to do, and it's simple to explain, then it shou

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Here's my 2c worth on Section 3.5 I'm on record as preferring a "common Homenet routing protocol" without having any fingers in any particular choice. I believe there is rough consensus around the choice of 0 or 1 routing protocol. Going through Section 3.5 line by line. Routing function

Re: [homenet] HNCP: Few proposed changes for next draft version

uters should not do anything fancy and just work as legacy devices believing the homenet is their ISP. This should not mean you should be able to "tunnel" through 7084 routers or so. Does that sound sane? And maybe what would be a better wording for this idea? Ray Hunter <ma

Re: [homenet] HNCP: Few proposed changes for next draft version

Steven Barth <mailto:cy...@openwrt.org> 3 June 2014 09:54 Am 03.06.2014 09:40, schrieb Ray Hunter: Steven Barth <mailto:cy...@openwrt.org> 3 June 2014 09:15 Well maybe it was worded a bit ambiguously. The main idea behind this was that an HNCP router should provide "basic

Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet

Liubing (Leo) wrote: Hi all, We have an ISIS auto-configuration draft under developing in ISIS WG (draft-liu-isis-auto-conf). Since Homenet/SME networks are one of the main scenarios our draft targets at, and we already have an OSPF-autoconf mechanism available (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoc

Re: [homenet] HNCP: Few proposed changes for next draft version

Steven Barth 3 June 2014 09:15 Well maybe it was worded a bit ambiguously. The main idea behind this was that an HNCP router should provide "basic connectivity" in the form of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6-PD to non-HNCP-routers. 7084 routers should not do anything fancy and jus

Re: [homenet] HNCP: Few proposed changes for next draft version

Steven Barth wrote: Hello everyone, I prepared the first few changes for the upcoming HNCP draft version 01. Most of this is derived from features we already added to our reference implementation. 1. Backwards-compatibility with RFC 7084 routers. Diff: https://github.com/fingon/ietf-dra

Re: [homenet] Please review the No IPv4 draft

The alternative scenarios and management models for sunsetting do not seem to have been discussed: e.g. 1) allow a customer to run their own home router and control their own broadcast traffic and multicast traffic. With IPv6 there's no reason why stacked routers are harmful, because there's n

Re: [homenet] WG adoption of draft-stenberg-homenet-hncp-00

Pierre Pfister <mailto:pierre.pfis...@darou.fr> 27 March 2014 08:50 Le 27 mars 2014 à 08:19, Ray Hunter a écrit : Mikael Abrahamsson<mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se> 27 March 2014 07:04 On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Ray Hunter wrote: HNCP as it stands right now has a "routing protocol&quo

Re: [homenet] WG adoption of draft-stenberg-homenet-hncp-00

Mikael Abrahamsson <mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se> 27 March 2014 07:04 On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Ray Hunter wrote: HNCP as it stands right now has a "routing protocol" of it's own that is extremely rudimentary, but it gets the job done. I think this is what is referred to as

Re: [homenet] WG adoption of draft-stenberg-homenet-hncp-00

Support adoption of HNCP as a WG item. I am interested to read more information on how Homenet would/could work with zero routing protocol. I presumed exactly one common Homenet interworking routing protocol. Ray Bellis wrote: At IETF 89 in London we took three hums: 1. On use of OSPF vs HN

Re: [homenet] DNSSEC and homenet

Mark Andrews wrote: In message<20140305102536.gd9...@mx1.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes: Mark, On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:58:23PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: a bit of flip flop but most of the time one is just "On WiFi" at home or The point is that we're designing a protocol, and "most

Re: [homenet] HNCP

Steven Barth 14 February 2014 20:29 I think your arguments about the downsides are valid and we have thought about them as well. However the current approach seems to be practical given the current situation that there is no common consensus about an IGP or about the

Re: [homenet] DNSSEC and homenet

Michael Richardson <mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> 4 March 2014 14:30 Ray Hunter wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:08:53AM +, Ralf Weber wrote: >> >>> or on the ISP auth name server). I have no problem with signing on >>> the CPE. I just don'

Re: [homenet] DNSSEC and homenet

inline. Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:08:53AM +, Ralf Weber wrote: or on the ISP auth name server). I have no problem with signing on the CPE. I just don't want to make it mandatory For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to assume that one has an inward-facing

Re: [homenet] HNCP

Mark Townsley wrote: All, In case anyone missed it, Markus and Pierre posted drafts and a pointer to an implementation describing the Home Net Control Protocol. Running code is very welcome. I'd like to provide some additional background, hat off. The work Markus, Stephen and Pierre h

Re: [homenet] Homenet protocol decisions

Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Ole Troan > wrote: We need to decide, if we want prefix assignment and distribution of other configuration information integrated in a routing protocol. I think the two should be in the same protocol

Re: [homenet] mdns populating repositories?

Ted Lemon wrote: > On Mar 13, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: >> This just doesn't make any sense to me. mDNS is typically used to do an >> A/ lookup. And mDNS isn't global, so it wouldn't do me much good if >> I were in Brazil. So I don't think this is a solution at all, and it >>

Re: [homenet] ISP-delegated IPv6 prefixes (3.4.1) in draft-ietf-homenet-arch-07

Ole Troan wrote: >>> There is no real reasons for ISP's to only do /64s except spite the >>> customer. The difference in costs from the RIRs for the bigger >>> address space is chump change even for developing states. All their >>> equipment will support > /64 because the big players want to supp

Re: [homenet] ISP-delegated IPv6 prefixes (3.4.1) in draft-ietf-homenet-arch-07

STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > This section of the homenet architecture draft has the following paragraph: > > The home network needs to be adaptable to ISP prefix allocation >policies, and thus make no assumptions about the stability of the >prefix received from an ISP, or the length of the

Re: [homenet] Naming and Service Discovery

Michael Thomas wrote: > On 02/27/2013 12:46 AM, Ray Hunter wrote: >> >> [Ole] does a name really have any meaning without a service >> associated with it? >> >> [Ray] URLs have meaning (rfc1738). It's going to be tough to know >> when your >> b

Re: [homenet] Naming and Service Discovery

I'm outside > I need to type in the externally visible > domain into my service discovery domain registry once. > cheers, > Ole > Ray Hunter <mailto:v6...@globis.net> > 27 February 2013 08:35 > >From the quoted draft: "for the purposes of this document, assume

Re: [homenet] Naming and Service Discovery

Ole Troan wrote: >> My understanding was that they were going to extend mDNS to work on >> multiple segments, rather than gluing mDNS "islands" with DNS... but I >> have not really followed the discussions in the mdnsext. > > see: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheshire-mdnsext-hybrid-01 > > ch

Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks

Michael Thomas wrote: > On 02/26/2013 09:10 AM, Ray Hunter wrote: >> >> , but what if there are two edge routers? >> >> Elect one to be authoritative: which needs a new protocol, plus some >> really complex take-over mechanism on failure. > > Pardon my igno

Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks

Ted Lemon wrote: > On Feb 26, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: >> What I've been rolling through my head is a host being able to claim a >> a name in a namespace when it attaches to a network provable by possession >> of an asymmetric key it generates. The host could update that name bindi

  1   2   >