2011/12/2 Brian E Carpenter
>
> How will this help with failover in multihomed sites? It guarantees
> that the packet will be sent towards the failed path, I think.
>
>
You are right! We were thinking that in case of a failover the host would
have to detect it and not choose the source address li
Guillaume Habault sends the draft
draft-habault-gallet-homenet-sdsa-00:
> The construction and
>maintenance of such tables is time-consuming and all routes to site
>destinations are duplicate on each table.
Really? I agree that it increases the number of
Op 2 dec. 2011, om 23:03 heeft Brian E Carpenter het volgende geschreven:
> Guillaume,
>
>> It checks the destination address and compares to all known routes
>> (except the default route). If the destination address matches an
>> entry, the packet is sent to the next hop and the algorithm ends.
Guillaume,
> It checks the destination address and compares to all known routes
> (except the default route). If the destination address matches an
> entry, the packet is sent to the next hop and the algorithm ends. If
> not, the source address is checked and compared to the list of
> delegated pr
I've attached a draft made from some research that had been performed here
to solve the ingress filtering issue in IPv6 multihomed network. That may
be interesting for homenet WG.
2011/11/18 Michael Richardson
>
> > "Guillaume" == Guillaume Habault
> writes:
> Guillaume> If so, do you
> "Teco" == Teco Boot writes:
>> If the two links are not on the same link, then the problem we
>> have is finding the right router that can send the traffic out.
>>
>> We only have to do this for traffic originating on the local link
>> from hosts on that local link. We
Op 18 nov. 2011, om 19:45 heeft Michael Richardson het volgende geschreven:
>
>> "Guillaume" == Guillaume Habault writes:
>Guillaume> If so, do you planned to have tunnels between home
>Guillaume> gateways ? Are we sure that ISPs behind the home gateway
>Guillaume> will accept t
> "Guillaume" == Guillaume Habault writes:
Guillaume> If so, do you planned to have tunnels between home
Guillaume> gateways ? Are we sure that ISPs behind the home gateway
Guillaume> will accept to cooperate with each other (I said that
Guillaume> because in France, home gate
Op 18 nov. 2011, om 11:49 heeft Guillaume Habault het volgende geschreven:
>
>
> 2011/11/16 Michael Richardson
>
> > "Guillaume" == Guillaume Habault writes:
>Guillaume> the host select the appropriate address, the routing
>Guillaume> protocol may route the message to the wrong C
2011/11/16 Michael Richardson
>
> > "Guillaume" == Guillaume Habault
> writes:
>Guillaume> the host select the appropriate address, the routing
> Guillaume> protocol may route the message to the wrong Customer Edge
>Guillaume> Router (especially if we are in the case where there
> "Guillaume" == Guillaume Habault writes:
Guillaume> the host select the appropriate address, the routing
Guillaume> protocol may route the message to the wrong Customer Edge
Guillaume> Router (especially if we are in the case where there is
Guillaume> more than one Customer
2011/11/15 Michael Richardson
>
> > "Guillaume" == Guillaume Habault
> writes:
>Guillaume> the host select the appropriate address, the routing
>Guillaume> protocol may route the
>Guillaume> message to the wrong Customer Edge Router (especially if
>Guillaume> we are in the ca
> "Joel" == Joel M Halpern writes:
Joel> On the one hand, earlier discussion emphasized that we need to
Joel> use protocols
Joel> and implementations that are well tested, robust, and simple
Joel> to use.
Joel> On the other hand, we have an expectation that these same
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>> Michael:
>>
>> If you want your PAN network to be reachable from the rest of the world,
>> you still need some mobility solution.
>>
>> For instance you could use NEMO. Get a PAN delegated from your home
>> network and then mov
Maybe I am missing something basic, but there seems to be a bit of a
disconnect on our assumption about what we need to have in in-home rotuers.
On the one hand, earlier discussion emphasized that we need to use
protocols and implementations that are well tested, robust, and simple
to use.
On
> "Guillaume" == Guillaume Habault writes:
Guillaume> the host select the appropriate address, the routing
Guillaume> protocol may route the
Guillaume> message to the wrong Customer Edge Router (especially if
Guillaume> we are in the case
Guillaume> where there is more t
tting ripe.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pascal
>
> -Original Message-
> From: homenet-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: lundi 7 novembre 2011 16:40
> To: homenet@ietf.org Group
> Subject: Re: [homenet] more
ascal
-Original Message-
From: homenet-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: lundi 7 novembre 2011 16:40
To: homenet@ietf.org Group
Subject: Re: [homenet] more comments on
draft-arkko-homenet-prefix-assignment
>>>>> "Ja
> -Original Message-
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 2:43 PM
> To: Howard, Lee
> Cc: homenet@ietf.org Group
> Subject: Re: [homenet] more comments on draft-arkko-homenet-prefix-assignment
>
> Lee,
>
>
> "Jari" == Jari Arkko writes:
Jari> It was simply outside the scope because I think the mechanisms
Jari> of distributing prefixes around are separable from the
Jari> question of what prefix types are used.
Jari> I was thinking that we need another document on the use of
Lee,
Thanks for your feedback and questions. Some answers inline:
This requirement requires justification:
o The assignments must be stable across reboots, power cycling,
router software updates, and preferably, should be stable across
simple network changes such as adding a ne
This requirement requires justification:
o The assignments must be stable across reboots, power cycling,
router software updates, and preferably, should be stable across
simple network changes such as adding a new device on the stub
network segments.
*Why* is that an RFC2119 M
22 matches
Mail list logo
