Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On 07-Oct-19 22:49, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Mark Smith wrote: > > Perhaps ANIMA is an alternative? It has seemed to me that home networks > > might be just a more specific case of autonomic networks. > > > For example, they've been defining a Generic Autonomic Signalling >

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 7, 2019, at 10:16 AM, RayH wrote: > If the ISP is on the hook for support, then “their network” includes your > home network. > What I mean is that the ISP gets phone calls from customers whether it’s their fault the network is broken or not. So they aren’t going out of their way to

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On 7 Oct 2019 17:03, Ted Lemon wrote:On Oct 7, 2019, at 10:00 AM, RayH wrote:Why does an ISP have to add complexity to their network in order to support Homenet?If the ISP is on the hook for support, then “their network” includes your home network.If that's their business

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 7, 2019, at 10:00 AM, RayH wrote: > Why does an ISP have to add complexity to their network in order to support > Homenet? If the ISP is on the hook for support, then “their network” includes your home network. ___ homenet mailing list

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On 7 Oct 2019 16:37, Ted Lemon wrote:On Oct 7, 2019, at 9:15 AM, RayH wrote:My preferred path would be to look at why Homenet hasn't been rolled out.If it's because manufacturers aren't updating boxes at all, or even ipv6 at all as per my local internet non-service provider,

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Hello Michael The order of order of 10^6 (hopefully 10^7) are the total deployed not a single mesh. This makes RPL quite a well-deployed protocol. As you indicate, a single mesh can approach 10^4. A depth can be al lot more than the 10 hops that we imagined initially. Yet it keeps working.

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Hello Ted : The reason why we opted for ND proxy is not the lack of a homenet solution. It is rather the fact that the wireless node keeps moving from a mesh to the next and if they are different subnets then it needs to renumber, which we did not know how to do efficiently – think dhcp or

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Hello Ted : Yes the millions I'm talking about are deployed in production. If that's so complicated then I guess we have has 2 small groups of magicians at Cisco alone ; ) I'm aware of competition as well. Plus my private pre-RPL implementation that took less than a month to code and test. As

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 7, 2019, at 9:15 AM, RayH wrote: > My preferred path would be to look at why Homenet hasn't been rolled out. > > If it's because manufacturers aren't updating boxes at all, or even ipv6 at > all as per my local internet non-service provider, another standard ain't > going to solve that.

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On 7 Oct 2019 15:47, Michael Richardson wrote: Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:     >> The deployment challenge of that is that every router must support HNCP and     >> must support SADR.     > Yes, there is indeed a problem here with incremental deployment.     > That's why I think there

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> The deployment challenge of that is that every router must support HNCP and >> must support SADR. > Yes, there is indeed a problem here with incremental deployment. > That's why I think there might be upside in "homenet lite" which drops the >

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Le 07/10/2019 à 15:25, Ted Lemon a écrit : On Oct 7, 2019, at 2:33 AM, Alexandre Petrescu mailto:alexandre.petre...@gmail.com>> wrote: If somebody makes a good solution and easily deployed for the topology in the above figure, then I am willing to consider it for vehicular networks as well.  

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 7, 2019, at 3:37 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Too bad then... I still fail to see why the model cannot be generalized to > more powerful nodes. Because it is maximally complex? :] You say that RPL has scaled to millions of nodes. Where is this deployed in production?

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 7, 2019, at 2:33 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote: > If somebody makes a good solution and easily deployed for the topology > in the above figure, then I am willing to consider it for vehicular > networks as well. In them, the CE Router is a Mobile Router in the car > and the Internal Router

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 6, 2019, at 11:36 PM, Ole Troan wrote: > I believe HNCP has solved the technical problem it set out to do. Allow for > an automatically configured, arbitrary topology network with multiple exits. > The deployment challenge of that is that every router must support HNCP and > must support

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Mark Smith wrote: > Perhaps ANIMA is an alternative? It has seemed to me that home networks > might be just a more specific case of autonomic networks. > For example, they've been defining a Generic Autonomic Signalling > Protocol (GRASP). GRASP has some overlap with HNCP, but

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Hello Ole and Ted: > >>> Sounds like you need to set it up as a NAT. >> >> I really hope you are just making a funny joke here. But it’s not very >> funny. What I want is something that’s operationally simple, not something >> with lots of moving parts that have to be kept track of.

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Ole Troan wrote: The deployment challenge of that is that every router must support HNCP and must support SADR. Yes, there is indeed a problem here with incremental deployment. That's why I think there might be upside in "homenet lite" which drops the arbitrary topology

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Le 04/10/2019 à 02:39, Ted Lemon a écrit : (If you got this as a Bcc, it’s because I am hoping you can contribute to the discussion, but might not be on the mailing list to which I sent the question, so please answer on-list if you are willing.) I’ve been involved in some discussions

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Le 07/10/2019 à 06:05, Gyan Mishra a écrit : [...] For IPv4 in general across the board all broadband routers openWrt or otherwise pnp setup have a dhcp wan IP and LAN side is RFC 1918 192.xx and nat overload is done from inside to outside. Pretty basic and it works well. For IPv6 we have the

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

In-line Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 7, 2019, at 2:47 AM, Gyan Mishra wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Oct 7, 2019, at 12:10 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> >> What you’ve proposed doesn’t seem like it would make things better. 7084 >> give us working ipv6 on the home network. What

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 7, 2019, at 12:10 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > What you’ve proposed doesn’t seem like it would make things better. 7084 give > us working ipv6 on the home network. What you’re proposing would take that > away. Let’s not go in that direction. > [Gyan] Understood. I

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Hi Ted, >> Are you saying there might be gaps in HNCP? Or things we could do to make it >> more deployable? >> If it's just a matter of running code missing, I'm not sure defining >> anything else new in the IETF would help that problem. > > There are definitely missing features from the