RPL enables non-equal cost multipath,
Could you please point out the place in the spec where it is described?
That's called feasible successors in EIGRP.
Er, no. Feasible successors are something different.
-- Juliusz
___
homenet mailing list
I am interested to learn what people think about whether equal-cost
multi-path routes are needed in homenet. Given the previous discussion
about parallel wireless links - which I know I have in my house and can't
use - I've been wondering if these have been considered.
As Toerless noted,
I think it is useful for
ieee-ietf-co...@ietf.orgmailto:ieee-ietf-co...@ietf.org to be in the
conversation. Some of the participants in the discussion are on that reflector
and I don’t know that they are on homenet or mboned.
Pat
From: ieee-ietf-coord [mailto:ieee-ietf-coord-boun...@ietf.org]
I'm removing from CC the people who I know are on Homenet, please do the
same with the other lists.
Since RFC 3819 is mostly concerned about avoiding receiving unwanted
multicast,
I don't know why you would get that impression. I helped write that
section (as noted in sec 19).
On 8/11/2015 10:34 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
I'm removing from CC the people who I know are on Homenet, please do the
same with the other lists.
Since RFC 3819 is mostly concerned about avoiding receiving unwanted
multicast,
I don't know why you would get that impression. I
RE: RFC3819
The assumption is that L2 will do a reasonably good and efficient job of
multicast/broadcast - certainly better than L3 or other layers would.
What I think Juliuz is trying to point out is that the RFC doesn't talk about
how good the performance of L2 multicast needs to be - for
Joe,
I'm mainly concerned in this discussion on what error rate is needed for
acceptable performance of the protocols that support IPv6 - e.g. DAD, RA.
Streaming multimedia is a separate discussion since different solutions might
apply to it.
While I agree with your conclusion, what's the
On 8/11/15, 5:17 PM, homenet on behalf of Juliusz Chroboczek
homenet-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
I am interested to learn what people think about whether equal-cost
multi-path routes are needed in homenet. Given the previous discussion
about parallel
* Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl
Op 10 aug. 2015, om 10:23 heeft Erik Kline e...@google.com het
volgende geschreven:
Whilst not wanting to de-rail any effort to standardise Babel
(since I firmly believe it should be standardised), I'd like to
hear the WG's view on having part of
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
This is actually being discussed in 6man, as the chairs requested it
there, but homenet might have comments to pass along.
From my point of view, homenet was designed to allow things to work
without hosts having the functionality described in
Hi,
Op 10 aug. 2015, om 10:20 heeft Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com het
volgende geschreven:
Personally I doubt that in the market segment we're talking about (which
includes many vendors that just take open source implementations, integrate
them, and ship them) vendors will
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 09:39:43AM +, Stephens, Adrian P wrote:
The only thing IETF can do is to use less multicast, and the obvious way of
solving it is to just replicate into unicast. This seems like a suboptimal
way to work around the problem if there are a lot of nodes.
When
Sure...
But don't look at me, i don't remember i added that Cc:, i added mboned ;-))
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:15:49PM -0400, Alia Atlas wrote:
Can we please remove ieee-ietf-co...@ietf.org from this conversation?
Once we as the IETF figure out what to write down and discuss, that'll be a
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:43:56AM +, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Yes it is. IP over Foo must indicate if IP multicast over a link uses L2
mechanisms or not.
If not, a router learns from MLD the state it needs to figure to which
devices it should copy a given packet.
Well, the
-Original Message-
From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 12:22 PM
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: HOMENET
Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving forward.
And fuckin ARP and ND don’t have to go everywhere.
+1.
ARP and ND should
Dino Farinacci farina...@gmail.com wrote:
WiFi is build on the assumption that single SSID is singe IP subnet
and that stations can roam between AP's without loss of connections. I
think this is great.
We can do this today when LISP runs on the device. And you only need a
single IPv6
Dino Farinacci farina...@gmail.com wrote:
WiFi is build on the assumption that single SSID is singe IP subnet
and that stations can roam between AP's without loss of connections. I
think this is great.
We can do this today when LISP runs on the device. And you only need a
Can we please remove ieee-ietf-co...@ietf.org from this conversation?
Once we as the IETF figure out what to write down and discuss, that'll be a
good time to interact,
but I think this conversation is really not the point of that list.
It's already cc'd to mboned and homenet...
Thanks,
Alia
On
I am interested to learn what people think about whether equal-cost
multi-path routes are needed in homenet. Given the previous discussion
about parallel wireless links - which I know I have in my house and can't
use - I've been wondering if these have been considered.
ECMP is critical in the
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vyncke-6man-mcast-not-efficient-01 may be
of interest in understanding some of the issues with IPv6 and wifi.
Regards,
Alia
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Toerless Eckert eck...@cisco.com wrote:
Sure...
But don't look at me, i don't remember i added that
Your document describes (in my opinion) desireable behaviour for devices
going forward. I would like to see text for DHCPv6 as well, both IA_NA and
IA_PD, if the same kind of behaviour can work there somehow. This is out of
scope for homenet though.
the rule applies regardless of how the
I am interested to learn what people think about whether equal-cost
multi-path routes are needed in homenet. Given the previous discussion about
parallel wireless links - which I know I have in my house and can't use -
I've been wondering if these have been considered.
ECMP is critical
I think the right term is multiple WAN paths. There may only be
a single SP offering useful service and you just need more bandwidth
so you have two links to the SP.
Any homenet solution where the local address is taken into account
should work as well as it would with different providers.
RPL enables non-equal cost multipath, Alia. That's the reasonable thing (a MUST
if you ask me) to do with wireless connectivity when delivery is statistical
and metrics can only provide a limited approximation of transmission chances.
Any DV can do that easily so we should be able to do it with
I don't think that ECMP is useful/interesting *within* the Homenet.
It is certainly true that having two DSL links bonded is regularly done
(usually using MPPP), but that presents as a single link. Some will want two
CPE routers for reasons of redundancy on their multi-path uplink. My opinion
On 8/11/2015 2:44 PM, Pat (Patricia) Thaler wrote:
RE: RFC3819
The assumption is that L2 will do a reasonably good and efficient job of
multicast/broadcast - certainly better than L3 or other layers would.
What I think Juliuz is trying to point out is that the RFC doesn't
talk about how
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
I'd say most applications people actually use start behaving very badly
around 0.1 - 1% packet loss. VoIP MOS goes down, TCP starts to really get
affected etc. I'd imagine most people I interact with that design
One of the requirements of homenet is that you don’t modify the hosts
More precisely, Homenet must not *require* host modifications. Having
features that yield better behaviour or performance for modified hosts is
hopefully allowed -- otherwise, we might as well give up on source-specific
Hi Michael, Juliusz, Pascal,
Thanks for your thoughts. I understand about the different upstream
providers. However, inside the home, if there are multiple paths, I can
also picture it being useful to use them (backups to a NAS, multiple video
streams, etc).
Whether they are simply
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Pat (Patricia) Thaler wrote:
Without guidance on how good the multicast packet loss rate should be,
it is difficult to define the best solution .
I'd say most applications people actually use start behaving very badly
around 0.1 - 1% packet loss. VoIP MOS goes down, TCP
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Alia Atlas akat...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes - downstream paths, as I already said. That is going to next-hops that
are closer to the destination than the computing router. As long as your
next-hop's distance to the destination is strictly decreasing, it is safe to
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Alia Atlas wrote:
There are two questions. First, is the desirable to load-balance among
different paths useful/necessary/unnecessary in homenet? Second, is
that accomplished with metric assignment that encourages equal-cost, are
downstream paths used, and/or is there a
The concerns about wifi links interfering with each other is interesting.
I wonder if that is always a local decision for one end of the links or
whether a link from A to B and one from C to D would need to be
coordinated? I'm tempted to want a nice abstraction layer, but I also
sense that it
Hi Lorenzo,
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Alia Atlas akat...@gmail.com wrote:
ECMP is critical in the data-center and backbone, but I'm interested in
seeing what the reasoning is as to why it isn't or is needed in
On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:47 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
Having a homenet load-balance Internet-bound across multiple provides is a
non-starter because it is presumed that said providers will employ BCP38
filtering. It's possible for the *hosts* to load-balance across
Could anyone point me to some good publications about the tradeoffs
involved in ECMP and that contains experimental data? Not necessarily on
wireless.
-- Juliusz
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Ole Troan wrote:
Your document describes (in my opinion) desireable behaviour for devices going
forward. I would like to see text for DHCPv6 as well, both IA_NA and IA_PD, if
the same kind of behaviour can work there somehow. This is out of scope for
homenet though.
Ok, but that forces you to tunnel all traffic through an out-of-home tunnel
endpoint point, which is sort of a non-starter for
This would be only external traffic. For traffic inside of the home you use an
IGP with host route support so one address can move across subnets inside the
home.
Probably doesn't come as a surprise. :-)
Dino
On Aug 11, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:23 AM, farina...@gmail.com wrote:
You and I tunnel to each other. We pay no one and we talk to each other
without any coordination from anyone
39 matches
Mail list logo
