One more point...
On 11/7/13 1:05 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> All,
> I seem to be the bane of homenet given my stance on multicast scope
> zones. Probably because I am a co-author on RFC 4007. :)
>
> After some discussions, it seems there is a reasonable way to allow
> the homenet arch
This part of the agenda today includes quite a bit on the thorny problem of
Border Discovery, you are more the welcome to join if you can!
Security
1040 Michael Behringer, draft-behringer-homenet-trust-bootstrap-01 (10 min)
1050 Markus Stenberg and Erik Kline, draft-kline-homenet-default-per
I looked at draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases for the text I
mentioned, and you are correct: it's not there.
It is in:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-ospf-dst-src-routing-03#section-2.2
and its is-is counterpart. I'll copy that example into the use case draft.
signa
All,
I seem to be the bane of homenet given my stance on multicast scope
zones. Probably because I am a co-author on RFC 4007. :)
After some discussions, it seems there is a reasonable way to allow
the homenet arch to use the admin-scope multicast range. My original
concern, as documen
Teco Boot wrote:
> For homenets and having ingress filtering as BCP, I think ::/0 routes
> with ::/0 source prefixes shall not be used. Also, for homenets I do
> not see a use case for non-::0 destination prefixes with non-::/0
> source prefixes.
Access to the LLN in the home mi
I'd like to draw your attention to a talk that will be given this morning in
homenet. The context is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases
"Requirements and Use Cases for Source/Destina
