Hi Mike,
Thanks for the comments.
On 19 Oct 2012, at 18:16, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 10/19/2012 09:36 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
We can take comments towards a -06 over the weekend. The most substantial
changes are in the Naming and Service Discovery section (3.7), so if you
Hi Ray,
Thanks for the thorough review, as always :)
On 20 Oct 2012, at 22:24, Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net wrote:
Thanks for editing this, Tim.
As requested, comments towards -06
Substantive Comments
Section 2.1
/The addition of routing between subnets raises
On 10/22/2012 07:22 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
And I don't think this possibility is excluded at all by the current arch text
either. It talks of an authoritative name service running on the CER, with a
dynamic registration service (e.g. dyndns). I have added 'as far as possible'
to the unmanaged
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Home Networking Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Home Networking Architecture for IPv6
Author(s) : Tim Chown
Jari Arkko
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 10/22/2012 07:22 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
And I don't think this possibility is excluded at all by the current arch
text either. It talks of an authoritative name service running on the CER,
with a dynamic registration
On 19/10/2012 18:16, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/19/2012 09:36 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
We can take comments towards a -06 over the weekend. The most
substantial changes are in the Naming and Service Discovery section
(3.7), so if you have limited time please focus your reading there.
One
On 10/22/2012 09:30 AM, Kerry Lynn wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com
mailto:m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 10/22/2012 07:22 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
And I don't think this possibility is excluded at all by the current
arch text either. It talks of an
Hi,
The -06 that I've just posted includes some comments made since last Friday.
Tim
On 22 Oct 2012, at 17:23, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Home Networking Working Group of
On 10/22/2012 09:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 19/10/2012 18:16, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/19/2012 09:36 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
We can take comments towards a -06 over the weekend. The most
substantial changes are in the Naming and Service Discovery section
(3.7), so if you have limited
On Oct 22, 2012, at 06:12 , Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
Therefore what seems to be on the table for homenet are:
[...]
d) NPT66 (RFC6296), which the homenet arch does not recommend, but see
draft-bonica-v6-multihome-03.
[...]
Why is this option still on the table?
Who is arguing
On Oct 22, 2012, at 1:43 PM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
Can we strengthen HOMENET arch to deprecate NPT66 explicitly?
Yes, please.
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
On 10/22/12 11:07 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:47, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Oct 22, 2012, at 1:43 PM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
Can we strengthen HOMENET arch to deprecate NPT66 explicitly?
Yes, please.
I meant 'on the table' as there is a draft out
On 10/22/2012 07:26 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
On 19 Oct 2012, at 17:55, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
If you get an ISP's name couldn't you always with or without their cooperation
generate names of the form host.uniquestring.isp.net? Where uniquestring
is either statistically unique (cf
On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:28 , mike m...@mtcc.com wrote:
I'd say that until we have source address selection that actually works and
is widely
deployed, that taking anything off the table is premature. Source address
selection
applies just as much on a homenet as anyplace else.
Disagree.
On 10/22/2012 09:30 AM, Kerry Lynn wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com
mailto:m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 10/22/2012 07:22 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
And I don't think this possibility is excluded at all by the current
arch text either. It talks of an
On 10/22/2012 11:57 AM, james woodyatt wrote:
On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:28 , mike m...@mtcc.com wrote:
I'd say that until we have source address selection that actually works and is
widely
deployed, that taking anything off the table is premature. Source address
selection
applies just as much on
Since earlier on this thread someone was asking for consensus: for the
record, I agree with all James's points.
I think that homenet should declare that NPT66 is not a supported means for
multihoming in home networks.
Yes, there is a multihoming problem, but no, NPT66 is not a solution/ NPT66
is
17 matches
Mail list logo
