On 03/03/2015 09:12, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 03/02/2015 11:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/03/2015 08:38, Michael Thomas wrote:
Well, draft-pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-01 describes a way
to bootstrap a certificate infrastructure, zero touch. Once every
device in a domain has
On 2.3.2015, at 21.34, Michael Behringer (mbehring) mbehr...@cisco.com wrote:
Then one can always discuss what kind of information could go into each
protocol after bootstrap. Perhaps what we actually need is a new bootstrap
security protocol (not only for homenet), and that this is where the
Dear Curtis,
I've just read through your mail carefully. While you make some good
points, I think that, unless a champion appears, OSPF will not be
reconsidered in time for Dallas. Additionally, many of your changes
merely change the stress of the document, and I'd rather not be making
Would any of those rfc explain to me what the problems with renumbering
in a homenet are that Fave tried to avoid by doing NAT ? And how
those issues can not be mitigated by better workarounds than NAT ?
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 02:24:08PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Admittedly 6renum was
Hi Toerless,
On 03/03/2015 10:23, Toerless Eckert wrote:
Would any of those rfc explain to me what the problems with renumbering
in a homenet are that Fave tried to avoid by doing NAT ? And how
those issues can not be mitigated by better workarounds than NAT ?
In message 87ioejy629.wl-...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
I'll do my best to see whether there's anything I can use at this
exteremely late date without annoying my co-authors too much. Sorry for
that.
By the way, the current version of the draft is on
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 05:14:47PM -0800, Dave Taht wrote:
That sort of plugfest would get the known users of things like hnetd
up from 2 to at least 50, and I would hope that the increased
operational experience from
In message 7i1tl7jdjs.wl-...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
Dear Curtis,
I've just read through your mail carefully. While you make some good
points, I think that, unless a champion appears, OSPF will not be
reconsidered in time for Dallas. Additionally, many of
On 03/02/2015 01:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/03/2015 09:12, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm doubtful that routing protocols need PSK's. They almost certainly
would like to share a symmetric key(s) but
is not the same thing.
But they need to agree on the shared key(s) securely, and the
Thanks for the thorough review Curtis. I am working on an -02 version that we
are hoping to publish tomorrow at this point. I will incorporate your
editorial suggestions, but some of your more substantive changes may have to
wait until there is agreement about them on the list. If we can
Hi Curtis,
The main reason for going forward with IS-IS over OSPFv3 is that there was
an open source implementation willing to implement and support all the
enhancements necessary for Homenet. Admittedly, the source/destination
routing requirement makes the entrance barrier a bit higher for
On Mar 2, 2015, at 8:30 PM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
Since there is no interest in this working group in actually testing
it's own effluent,
I think there is interest. I'm certainly interested. But plugfests and
working group meetings are two different things, and it's too
Regards
Brian Carpenter
http://orcid.org/-0001-7924-6182
On 03/03/2015 15:05, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 03/02/2015 01:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/03/2015 09:12, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm doubtful that routing protocols need PSK's. They almost
certainly would like to
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Curtis Villamizar cur...@ipv6.occnc.com wrote:
In message 7i1tl7jdjs.wl-...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
Dear Curtis,
I've just read through your mail carefully. While you make some good
points, I think that, unless a champion
Since there is no interest in this working group in actually testing it's own
effluent, in what exists as running code so far, and prefers instead to
re-raise
old debates, and come up with unworkable alternatives, and otherwise
waste my time - and openwrt chaos calmer is going freeze in a
On 03/02/2015 06:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
so you're mollified if somebody's cert says hi i'm
1232345245213452345...@lkajsdlfjasdfds.clasjdflakjsdfk.ladsjflakjsfdls.xxx
instead?
the possession of a cert does nothing in and of itself to make an
enrollment decision.
No, of course not. That
In message c8e13842-f1d9-4768-86a7-3b2ea1e56...@chopps.org
Christian Hopps writes:
On Mar 2, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used
(with proper TLV additions) to completely
I can understand why this is done in IPv4 (not enough address space) but this
does not apply to IPv6.
Just as one point where it does apply: 6rd deployments experience
fate-sharing of the IPv6 address prefix with the IPv4 address. In PPPoE-based
architectures, the IPv4 address is known to
In message 7615609f-512e-42aa-a2e7-4dbb31f1a...@chopps.org
Christian Hopps writes:
Hi homenet-wg,
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used
(with proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were
used as the homenet protocol. If true should we be
In message 54f4d7bb.3050...@gmail.com
Brian E Carpenter writes:
Hi Toerless,
On 03/03/2015 10:23, Toerless Eckert wrote:
Would any of those rfc explain to me what the problems with renumbering
in a homenet are that Fave tried to avoid by doing NAT ? And how
those issues can not be
In message 87twy3wjtr.wl-...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
I got my hands on ISO 10589 today and tried to very briefly glance through
it. And personally I had a really hard time getting into it.
Having read the comparison document beforehand I haven't found
In message 48cf8896-1924-493e-aefe-ce393347c...@iki.fi
Markus Stenberg writes:
On 2.3.2015, at 5.12, Curtis Villamizar cur...@ipv6.occnc.com wrote:
Most important is that if this were to become a WG doc and the WG has
for some reason excluded OSPF, this document should evaluate OSPF as
Sorry,
too much working on the implementation side of NHDP/OLSRv2 in the last
years... should have thought a bit more about the reply before sending
it.
Yes, you are correct that RFC6130 does not contain the description of
the link metric... it only contains a rough EWMA based link quality
I've actually been wondering about this, too.
I would dearly like to avoid having this discussion today. I was under
the impression that we had agreed on today's deadline for the -02 version
of the routing protocol comparison, and so had assumed that only editorial
changes and discussion of
On Mar 2, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Steven Barth cy...@openwrt.org wrote:
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used (with
proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were used as the
homenet protocol. If true should we be calling this out more explicitly
On 2.3.2015, at 15.55, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I think Markus' comments on security are also very important to consider
here, as some sort of integrated security mechanism between the routing
protocol and HNCP might be strongly
I got my hands on ISO 10589 today and tried to very briefly glance through
it. And personally I had a really hard time getting into it.
Having read the comparison document beforehand I haven't found anything
about IPv4, IPv6, HMACs, wide-metrics or other things that are mentioned
in the
Dear Curtis,
The chairs have asked us to submit -02 today (2 March), so your comments
are late. I'll do my best to see whether there's anything I can use at
this exteremely late date without annoying my co-authors too much. Sorry
for that.
As to OSPF -- it is my understanding that it was not
I'll do my best to see whether there's anything I can use at this
exteremely late date without annoying my co-authors too much. Sorry for
that.
By the way, the current version of the draft is on
https://github.com/choppsv1/hn-rtg-cmp/
I think it meets many of your changes, please see
Hi homenet-wg,
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used (with
proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were used as the
homenet protocol. If true should we be calling this out more explicitly in the
document?
Thanks,
Chris.
On 2.3.2015, at 15.00, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used
(with proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were
used as the homenet protocol.
I see that you've been speaking with
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used
(with proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were
used as the homenet protocol.
I see that you've been speaking with Abrahamsson. Please let me give you
some background.
Two years ago, there was a very
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:33:47AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used (with
proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were used as the
homenet protocol. If true should we be calling this out more explicitly
This was of course meant to go out by private mail.
I most sincerely apologise to both Mikael and Chris -- both the tone and
the content of this mail are completely innapropriate for a public forum.
-- Juliusz
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
Thanks for the quick reply. Looks like I will be having something to
read on the plane to Dallas.
On 02.03.2015 15:56, Christian Hopps wrote:
On Mar 2, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Steven Barth cy...@openwrt.org wrote:
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used (with
proper
The discusion on good support for WiFi networks at homes is important and shall
not be put aside because it is difficult. The outcome could have an impact of
selection of the homenet routing protocol, caused by a requirement to support
layer-2 topologies. I suggest to add a section om this in
Following question may strictly speaking be out of scope for Homenet, as
it is about the WAN side interface and interaction with the upstream ISP
router.
Whilst setting up my own HNCP testbed, I was attempting to configure my
own last-hop ISP router assuming a customer-owned Homenet router
typically the ISP router snoops DHCPv6 messages and does route injection based
on that, or the DHCPv6 server runs on the ISP router and does route injection
based on binding state.
I'm doing the latter at home since I don't have any native IPv6 here so
I have a router doing 6in4 to he.net on
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
The next version of cerowrt will do translation from the external IPv6
address range to a static internal one (or ones, in the case of
multiple egress gateways), and lacking a standard for such will use
fcxx/8
If we carry NAT over to IPV6, then shame on us.
I am sorry, I no longer share this opinion [...] The next version of
cerowrt will do translation from the external IPv6 address range to
a static internal one (or ones, in the case of multiple egress
gateways),
(Insert strong expression of
On Mar 2, 2015, at 1:59 PM 3/2/15, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
If we carry NAT over to IPV6, then shame on us.
I am sorry, I no longer share this opinion [...] The next version of
cerowrt will do translation from the external IPv6 address range to
a static
On 03/02/2015 11:34 AM, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Markus
Stenberg
Sent: 02 March 2015 15:11
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: homenet@ietf.org; Markus Stenberg; Margaret Wasserman; Christian
Hopps
Subject:
-Original Message-
From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Markus
Stenberg
Sent: 02 March 2015 15:11
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: homenet@ietf.org; Markus Stenberg; Margaret Wasserman; Christian
Hopps
Subject: Re: [homenet] routing protocol comparison document
On 03/02/2015 11:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/03/2015 08:38, Michael Thomas wrote:
Well, draft-pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-01 describes a way
to bootstrap a certificate infrastructure, zero touch. Once every
device in a domain has a domain certificate, two devices can
44 matches
Mail list logo
