> On Oct 10, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>
>> On 10 Oct 2014, at 13:43, Townsley.net wrote:
>>
>>>> On Oct 9, 2014, at 9:22 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 9 Oct 2014, at 12:03, Ole Troan wrote:
>>>>
> On Oct 9, 2014, at 9:22 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>
>> On 9 Oct 2014, at 12:03, Ole Troan wrote:
>>
>> it doesn't make sense to specify something that breaks SLAAC.
>>
>> protocol design is politics. we want to make it clear to the address
>> delegation authorities that not delegating a large
WG,
Sorry for the abrupt exit.
Thank you for all the hard work before and comments during the meeting today.
Normally I really get a lot out of small discussions right after the meeting,
something that due to scheduling I had to miss this time. If you have a comment
you wanted to make, posit
Nice bit of news for the day... Comcast announces it has completed deployment
of v6 to 100% of homes, along with v6-only products on the way.
- Mark
(Thumbtyped)
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Brzozowski, John"
> Date: July 22, 2014 at 1:42:32 PM EDT
> Resent-To
Thank you, Acee.
The very first sentence of section 3.5 contains a very strong statement about
using existing protocols. I don't see how expanding this section with detailed
routing protocol requirements du jour helps to underscore that point. So,
please, let's stop.
- Mark
(Thumbtyped)
>
I think for an arch document, we should talk generally about how a routing
protocol could plug into the rest of the system, but stop short of details
within the routing protocol itself. If routing experts are concerned the
working group is going to go into bad territory with cost metrics, path
Good we agree on the substance, if not the semantics. On the semantics, I could
probably be swayed over a longer conversation with beer.
- Mark
(Thumbtyped)
On Feb 15, 2014, at 11:46 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Townsley.net wrote:
>> I think the subt
I think the subtlety here is whether or not homenet recommends doing this by
default in one form or another - as Homenets really don't have the luxury of
users deciding to do these types of things or not. In that sense, what may look
"operational" in a traditional network with traditional opera
> Personally, I was very skeptical when the team let me know that the result of
> their analysis led them to the need to create HNCP.
I forgot to add that, after looking deeper into what had actually been done, I
warmed up to the idea greatly. That's just me though...I look forward to what
