Re: [homenet] HNCP WGLC

Hi Douglas, it is a bit hard for me to decipher your mail or extract what is relevant wrt. to the HNCP I-D. > Sorry for the delay. We were attempting to complete a > security related draft on the topic. Are you preparing a generic draft on homenet security or is this specific to HNCP or DNS-SD?

Re: [homenet] HNCP WGLC

On 8/26/15 6:21 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > Homenet WG, > > This is just a quick reminder that the WGLC on > draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-08 is due to finish this Friday, 28th August. > > If you have any further comments please get them in ASAP. Dear Ray, Sorry for the delay. We were attempting to co

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

On 26 August 2015 at 15:41, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> Can we just go with whichever recommendations come out of dnssd? >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnssd/charter/ >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnssd/documents/ > > Could you perhaps point me at a specific paragraph of a spe

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

On Aug 26, 2015, at 15:22, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > >> - DHCPv6 (ha ha! but at least it is simple in this case) > > I've received a few queries about this by private mail, some of which > indicate there is some confusion, so please let me clarify. > > DHCPv6 has two modes of operation. Sta

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

> Can we just go with whichever recommendations come out of dnssd? > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnssd/charter/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnssd/documents/ Could you perhaps point me at a specific paragraph of a specific draft and tell me "Do implement this, we're betting the

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

> - DHCPv6 (ha ha! but at least it is simple in this case) I've received a few queries about this by private mail, some of which indicate there is some confusion, so please let me clarify. DHCPv6 has two modes of operation. Stateless DHCPv6 is a fine protocol for propagating static configuration

Re: [homenet] question: equal-cost multipath?

On Aug 25, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Alia Atlas mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Ted Lemon > wrote: > On Aug 25, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Alia Atlas > wrote: >> ECMP or downstream paths is not a research project; it is comm

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

Juliusz, Can we just go with whichever recommendations come out of dnssd? https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnssd/charter/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnssd/documents/ Or you want something to use in advance of their work? ___ homenet mailin

Re: [homenet] question: equal-cost multipath?

On Aug 26, 2015, at 01:07, Dave Taht wrote: > > Another example of that problem is that it would be nice to have a > standard for fetching "what is my uplink/downlink rate" from isps. > upnp has some support for propagating this info, but it is underused > and rarely configured properly. When I’

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

> On 26.8.2015, at 16.17, Juliusz Chroboczek > wrote: >> I guess we might as well simply recommend MDNS > Fair enough, assuming there is mDNS proxying in the Homenet. (Or should > we be speaking on ff05::fb and counting on Pierre to do some magic?) It is not really an option - it requires serio

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

>> Short-term reachability indications are sent to hosts in a reactive manner, >> using ICMP unreachables. If any applications are unable to do the right >> thing with ICMP unreachables, we should fix the applications. > How do you propose the application to react? Most applications leave > the

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Philip Homburg wrote: >>I am not aware of any application doing anything more than "try to >>open the connection again". >> >>How do you propose the application to react? Most applications leave >>the source-IP selection to the operation system... >> >>does any OS

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

In your letter dated Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:07:50 +0200 you wrote: >On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek > wrote: >> What I'm saying is that neither DHCPv4 nor IPv6 RA are designed to deal >> with prefixes that last less than a few hours. See for example RFC 4862 >> Section 5.5.3 parag

[homenet] HNCP WGLC

Homenet WG, This is just a quick reminder that the WGLC on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-08 is due to finish this Friday, 28th August. If you have any further comments please get them in ASAP. thanks, Ray and Mark. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

> I guess we might as well simply recommend MDNS Fair enough, assuming there is mDNS proxying in the Homenet. (Or should we be speaking on ff05::fb and counting on Pierre to do some magic?) > DHCPv6 [...] relevant usecases [...] And here I thought you were a friend. -- Juliusz ___

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >>> So if a route is flapping, hosts get or don't get an IP depending on the >>> exact time when they send a DHCPREQUEST or NS? Is that better than always >>> assigning an IP to hosts, and expecting ICMP to signal route flapping in >>> re

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

RFC 1001? Is that standards track? Nevertheless HNCP is hopefully soon :p To be more serious, I guess we might as well simply recommend MDNS since that is a standard and already deployed. DHCPv6 is probably more lightweight though (and even to me naming seems to be one of the few relevant useca

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

>> How does a host announce its name and address to the Homenet? Just mDNS? >> Or are we planning a protocol to store the mapping within DNS? > Since we mainly have to live with what is there today (and in the IETF), the > obvious solutions are MDNS Ok. > and stateful DHCPv6. Over my dead body

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

>> So if a route is flapping, hosts get or don't get an IP depending on the >> exact time when they send a DHCPREQUEST or NS? Is that better than always >> assigning an IP to hosts, and expecting ICMP to signal route flapping in >> real time? > Are you talking about a route that is created and va

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> Yes. If DHCP server and radvd wait until the route to the prefix is >> available in the routing table, we keep the decision about >> "reachability" to the routing protocol without having a hard dependency >> on it. > > So if a route is

Re: [homenet] Host naming in Homenet

Hi Juliusz, > How does a host announce its name and address to the Homenet? Just mDNS? > Or are we planning a protocol to store the mapping within DNS? > > (I'm assuming no stateful DHCPv6, of course.) Since we mainly have to live with what is there today (and in the IETF), the obvious solution

[homenet] Host naming in Homenet

Hi, How does a host announce its name and address to the Homenet? Just mDNS? Or are we planning a protocol to store the mapping within DNS? (I'm assuming no stateful DHCPv6, of course.) -- Juliusz ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www

Re: [homenet] question: equal-cost multipath?

>> out what links interfere? Is this something that would need >> a centralized view of the home network? > > There is also the quite common powerline to ethernet bridges. Yeah. They look just like Ethernet to the host, so short of speaking the HomePlug AV management protocol, I don't see how t

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

> Yes. If DHCP server and radvd wait until the route to the prefix is > available in the routing table, we keep the decision about > "reachability" to the routing protocol without having a hard dependency > on it. So if a route is flapping, hosts get or don't get an IP depending on the exact time

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Henning Rogge wrote: > >> I wonder if HNCP routers should apply all addresses/prefixes to its local >> interfaces, but should check for an existing route to the HNCP router that >> announce the prefix before providi

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

> If I understand HNCP right then the "uplink" will announce a prefix > which should be used by all routers for the attached hosts. Er... no. The "uplink", or delegating router in Homenet parlance, only announces a source-specific route. It's the routers performing the assignment that announce a

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Henning Rogge wrote: I wonder if HNCP routers should apply all addresses/prefixes to its local interfaces, but should check for an existing route to the HNCP router that announce the prefix before providing it via DHCP or RA to hosts. Let me rephrase what I think you're

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

On 26.8.2015, at 12.39, Henning Rogge wrote: > My problem is not with the prefixes assigned to the interfaces of HNCP > routers itself, my problem is with the prefixes provided to attached > hosts. > > If I understand HNCP right then the "uplink" will announce a prefix > which should be used by a

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

My problem is not with the prefixes assigned to the interfaces of HNCP routers itself, my problem is with the prefixes provided to attached hosts. If I understand HNCP right then the "uplink" will announce a prefix which should be used by all routers for the attached hosts. The problem will appea

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

> It is not uncommon for wireless links to use some kind of hysteresis > on a routing protocol. The problem/feature of D/HNCP is that it is > independent of the routing protocol... so it does not know. I'm not sure I'm following you. All that shncpd does is to announce attached prefixes over the

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

> [...] each router connected to said [Common] link: > MUST forward traffic destined to said prefix to the respective link. Here's the mechanism in the shncpd implementation, Steven will hopefully tell me if that's what's intended: - for each locally delegated prefix P, we install: - a sou

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > Hm, there must be some preconception here that I do not understand. > > Why would a routing protocol choose to decide not to use a "bad" link if > there are no other alternatives available? Bad links should be avoided if > there are bett

Re: [homenet] question: equal-cost multipath?

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Aug 25, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Alia Atlas wrote: > > ECMP or downstream paths is not a research project; it is common used > technology. When the traffic streams desired are larger than can fit across > a single path, it becomes critical. > > >

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

Hello Henning, > Does HNCP somehow make sure that there is a route towards the prefix > it distributes? While D/HNCP checks that there is a path of links, the > routing protocol might decide that one of the links is too > unstable/slow for traffic and does not use it for routing. > > What is the

Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Henning Rogge wrote: Hi, I am experimenting with SHNCPD at the moment and wonder about a detail in the Homenet prefix distribution to attached hosts. Does HNCP somehow make sure that there is a route towards the prefix it distributes? While D/HNCP checks that there is a pa

[homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes

Hi, I am experimenting with SHNCPD at the moment and wonder about a detail in the Homenet prefix distribution to attached hosts. Does HNCP somehow make sure that there is a route towards the prefix it distributes? While D/HNCP checks that there is a path of links, the routing protocol might decid