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
Hey Dino,
On 8/5/15, 1:01 PM, homenet on behalf of Dino Farinacci
homenet-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of farina...@gmail.com wrote:
There are a lot of things wrong in the IETF. And there are some good
things about the IETF.
Let’s just keep the discussions technical. We may have to be
Hi Alia,
On Aug 5, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Alia Atlas
akat...@gmail.commailto:akat...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mikael,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson
swm...@swm.pp.semailto:swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Toerless Eckert (eckert) wrote:
Still sucks to tweak a routing
On Jul 29, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Ted Lemon
mel...@fugue.commailto:mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Jul 29, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Dave Taht
dave.t...@gmail.commailto:dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
a bit offtopic, it would be good to have IANA assign some port numbers
soon, if they have not already. (?)
The way
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 2/18/15, 9:19 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
I also think there should also be more explicit links back into the
Homenet Architecture document
[...]
Perhaps a table with complies does not comply or partially
complies
per paragraph or phrase?
Good point.
On 2/18/15, 9:52 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
- Babel will avoid creating loops even when reconverging, but might
create blackholes; IS-IS will collapse during reconvergence;
I would say the IS-IS will create micro-loops and blackholes during
reconvergence. I
Who contributed the ISIS implementation in Erlang? I must admit I haven¹t
followed it closely but I thought all the quagga work was C or C++?
On 12/5/14, 8:29 AM, Markus Stenberg markus.stenb...@iki.fi wrote:
On 23.11.2014, at 23.53, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
On 11/18/14, 1:46 AM, Teco Boot t...@inf-net.nl wrote:
Op 17 nov. 2014, om 17:53 heeft Margaret Wasserman
margaret...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven:
On Nov 16, 2014, at 8:44 PM, Teco Boot t...@inf-net.nl wrote:
It could be long enough to get in trouble. There could be more than
two
Hi Juliusz,
I think I understand. If there is the potential for a loop (advertised
distance = babel router’s former distance), babel will wait for the next
sequenced route from the source. So, the loop-free guarantee is at the expense
of potentially faster convergence. Correct?
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/15/14, 7:57 AM, Margaret Wasserman margaret...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 15, 2014, at 7:40 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
Mark, please scratch my previous offer to implement a stub-only variant
of
Babel. Please let me know how much flash and RAM you give me,
While we didn¹t spend a lot of time on it in Thursday¹s meeting, it was
proposed that the IoT device domain would never be used for transit so it
only needed to get a default (or other aggregate) and inject a prefix and
the HNCP could be made to satisfy this requirement.
On 11/15/14, 10:36 AM,
On 10/4/14, 10:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 05/10/2014 09:24, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Right - but we still have to agree on the admin or, as you put it,
ownership model. At least one of the proposal for autonomic networking
is
a centralized approach
. Some ceremonies
work to improve privacy and security.
The home network needs to be owned by the home user(s) or agent (could
be the ISP or some over-the-top retail solution, etc.).
Mark
On Oct 3, 2014, at 6:39 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote:
One thing we need to do in homenet
One thing we need to do in homenet is agree on the network administration
model. I believe many of us started with the assumption of plug and play
but are now accepting the fact that minimal configuration will be required
to vet devices on the homenet. If we can agree on similar network admin
I agree with this direction. This will also let the work HCNP and Security
Threats/Requirements to go on in parallel. Of course, HCNP security may
need to be revisited once the latter is agreed upon.
Thanks,
Acee
On 9/21/14, 3:22 PM, Mark Baugher m...@mbaugher.com wrote:
On Sep 20, 2014, at
I agree with Markus. The conflicting goals of self-configuration and
security seem to be a recurring theme in homenet. I reread the security
section in the ³Homenet Architecture² and it mainly covers with security
at the edges (which presumes effective edge detection). There is this
statement
On Sep 10, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
I’ve heard it said over and over in HOMENET sessions that we weren’t going
to put new requirements on the host stacks. Why is this draft interesting?
HOMENET doesn't
On 8/1/14, 12:47 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
Given the current RIPng standard timers, it could also be argued that
RIPng, as specified, doesn't meet the convergence requirements.
Minimising convergence time should be a goal in any routed
environment.
On 7/25/14, 3:31 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
RJ,
If I understand you right, you're pushing for an approach where we don't
say anything about the routing protocol, and wait for the market to
converge on RIPng, thus ensuring interoperability. Please correct me
20 matches
Mail list logo
