On 2015-08-05 4:49 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
This is very simple to resolve. This is not a technical response.
(1) Have homenet adopt both protocols. Let the market decide. That means there
may be routing protocol redistribution in the home. This would be a mistake.
Would we not want to diffe
o our experience and how we can get from A-Z in a single step is
questionable. I can tell you today we spend most of our time as operators
trying to get stuff upgraded (mobile and wireline) and making stuff work
(not break) while we do it. It's a difficult reality we deal with every
day.
Rega
What technical constraints are present that do not allow us to move to a
homenet future (currently envisioned one in the WG) world?
If they are present, are those constraints any different then the ones we
have moving from what we have today (6204/6204bis) to the envisioned future
homenet?
I don'
On 2013-02-24 9:20 AM, "Brzozowski, John"
wrote:
>Thanks for the clarification Ted. I recall this being looked at as a
>standard practice ~10 years ago even for larger providers, however, the
>challenges associated with the same out weighed any perceived benefits. I
>do not hear much about th
On 2012-11-13 5:47 PM, "james woodyatt" wrote:
>
>For my part, I have a hard time foreseeing how the expectation that
>residential sites will always have more space to assign than a single /64
>subnet is even remotely reasonable. Far too many service providers are
>casting into operational conc
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 13/11/12 19:04, Jim Gettys wrote:
>
>
>> So the recursive DHCP-PD scheme strikes me as something possibly very
>> fragile. I really, really don't want to repeat the experience I had with
>> having extra DHCP servers, and I would guess few I
ration etc. No matter why
it occurs, ignoring this case is likely not a good idea.
I agree with earlier comments that this can be considered as a failure
mode. It still needs to be considered for good engineering on how CPEs
and homenet gear will
On 2012-11-07 1:43 PM, "Ted Lemon" wrote:
>On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Victor Kuarsingh
>wrote:
>> I am not sure I would agree that getting a /64 would inherently mean a
>> router knows is an intermediate router. There are potential scenarios
>> where an ed
he ISP edge router (not the
best case scenario, but potential).
I know this subtle point is somewhat outside the context of this thread,
but just wanted to make the point.
Regards,
Victor Kuarsingh
>
>___
>homenet mailing list
>homen
On 12-03-03 4:15 PM, "Brian E Carpenter"
wrote:
>
>I noticed that there is no section discussing operations and management
>as a topic on its own. It seems to me that this is needed, even if what
>it says is that the architecture must ensure that manual operations and
>management are either not
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-eps-08#section-5.3
>>
>>>Expect to see ND Proxy from mobile networks.
>>
>> Thanks much for the reference. But the reference is still an I-D and
>> not RFC. RFC 4389 is on Experimental Track. One reason this document
>
>The status does
On 11-10-13 7:49 AM, "Russ White" wrote:
>
>> >>>>> "Victor" == Victor Kuarsingh > <mailto:victor.kuarsi...@gmail.com>> writes:
>>Victor> These devices (in such operating modes) are however not
>>
>
>
>
> And if I'm at home with WiFi at home and my laptop plugged into the
> Internet and plug in the USB (or other tether) to update my contacts
> list on the phone, because its easier/faster, we have the situation
> described, even though the intent was not to use the phone as an IP
> gateway.
>
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Victor" == Victor Kuarsingh writes:
>Victor> These devices (in such operating modes) are however not
>Victor> likely to participate in a home network (as the gateway
>
Mark,
A few points on this topic.
As noted, the Cell system will have PD capabilities until a future 3GPP
release (Rel-10) as noted. Although, even when the functionality is in
place (generally), small devices like Smartphone and the mini gateways
(3G/LTE devices which allow for 4-5 hosts to att
>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Shishio Tsuchiya wrote:
>>
>>> 2^64 host address space would be too enough for homenet.
>>
>>
>> I would just like to comment on this even though you retracted your question.
>>
>> As an ISP, I do not want to participate in a home with hundreds or thousands
of active IPv6 a
16 matches
Mail list logo
