On 01/11/2014 12:28, Ralph Droms wrote:
On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Oct 31, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Well yes. That's exactly why in autonomic management of prefixes,
we need peer to peer negotiation
On 30/10/2014 22:08, Markus Stenberg wrote:
On 28.10.2014, at 22.13, Benoit Claise bcla...@cisco.com wrote:
1. scope
OLD: The ANIMA working group will initially focus on enterprise, ISP
networks and IoT.
NEW:The ANIMA working group focuses on professionally-managed networks.
+1.
Rene,
On 30/10/2014 16:50, Rene Struik wrote:
Hi Brian:
It is very puzzling to me to see essential deployments that would be a
test case on viability of the concept of semi-automatic management (in
casu: constrained networks and devices) being removed from the charter.
I have not seen any
FYI the status of the anima meeting in HNL will only be decided
at this weeks's IESG meeting and the chairs are not yet known,
so the agenda process is running late.
Regards
Brian Carpenter (with no hat on)
On 28/10/2014 00:08, Pierre PFISTER wrote:
Hello Anima future chairs/participants,
On 22/10/2014 23:54, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 22 Oct 2014, at 02:02, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Up one more level: the charter looks pretty out of date in general.
Hi Brian,
The charter itself still reflects our primary focus. I believe it still
accurately
Michael,
On 23/10/2014 07:04, Michael Richardson wrote:
James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
My assertion:
Given HNCP generated one spans whole administrative domain, _and_
should not have routing anywhere outside it, it’s uniqueness does not
_matter_.
Hi,
I agree with whoever it was that said there is not enough explanation
of the threat model in this draft. The result is that I really can't
evaluate whether the proposed solution is complete or adequate.
The other thing that bothers me is that we need a secure homenet, not
just a secure HNCP.
On 15/10/2014 22:48, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Markus Stenberg wrote:
Every time I hear about ISP-forced customer renumberings, the more I
start to think that 1+ ULA prefixes per home is a MUST, not a SHOULD.
For me this isn't just about ISP-forced customer
On 16/10/2014 11:57, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/15/14, 3:49 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my
backyard trapeze watching
the flying wallendas instructional video from my
On 15/10/2014 08:31, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 14, 2014, at 2:19 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote:
On the topic of the original question, if I were to editorialize here, then
I would want to see something like this:
I get that you have an opinion on this, but you haven't actually
On 09/10/2014 22:29, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Thanks for updating.
Le 09/10/2014 11:26, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
Hello,
I’m proposing this change then.
1. In case the provided prefix is 64, the default consist in assigning
prefixes of length 64 first.
2. I’m adding a reference to
On 09/10/2014 03:21, Tim Chown wrote:
On 8 Oct 2014, at 14:14, Pierre Pfister pierre.pfis...@darou.fr wrote:
Why should we mandate homenet implementations to *brake* in situations where
they could work fine ? Why should we voluntarily prevent a link from being
configured if we actually can
On 08/10/2014 03:23, Mark Townsley wrote:
On Oct 2, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
but I would expect HNCP to be much sooner than Anima.
Then anima is going to have to deal with HNCP one day in any case. The
handoff between the distributed manner
(cc's trimmed. I'm not sure the whole IESG wants this in their inboxen.)
On 06/10/2014 08:51, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
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
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 as opposed to configuring a single authentication
password on each new device (as
On 02/10/2014 19:26, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
This use case is precisely what draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment
does (which has roots all the way back to
draft-arkko-homenet-prefix-assignment-00
On 02/10/2014 21:20, Markus Stenberg wrote:
On 1.10.2014, at 22.44, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Personal comments on this:
1) One reason for not stating homenet as part of the scope is
that we do not want to interfere with the current progress in
homenet. Personally
Pierre,
On 02/10/2014 02:58, Pierre Pfister wrote:
Hello Benoit,
Looks like ANIMA’s goals are quite similar to Homenet’s
indeed.
Except that homenet has a limited scope and is well advanced
in its work.
Please allow me to comment the charter.
1. Why would you put the ‘negociation
Markus,
On 02/10/2014 05:27, Markus Stenberg wrote:
On 1.10.2014, at 16.20, Benoit Claise bcla...@cisco.com
wrote:
Based on the previous UCAN BoF, we are considering having
an ANIMA WG: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and
Approach This is now a proposed charter, under
consideration by
On 02/10/2014 13:26, Mark Townsley wrote:
On Oct 1, 2014, at 9:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
1) One reason for not stating homenet as part of the scope is
that we do not want to interfere with the current progress in
homenet. Personally I think there is a lot
On 19/09/2014 09:17, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 9/18/14, 2:10 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
Self-signed certs bring only confusion, IMO: they are nothing more
than a
raw key with an unsubstantiated claim to another name, along with a
whole
lot more ASN.1 baggage beyond what is needed to parse
On 18/09/2014 02:58, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 09/16/2014 11:31 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
As was presented in.. err, London?, shared secrets are bad. To really
do this properly, we need device specific keys and some kind of list
of devices that are allowed to connect, perhaps by having
...@gmail.com
Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 13/09/2014 17:40, Markus Stenberg wrote:
On 13.9.2014, at 5.50, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12/09/2014 22:23, Markus Stenberg wrote:
...
1) Can we assume secure L2 and/or appropriate device
configuration by the manufacturer/ISP
On 27/07/2014 03:30, Brian Haberman wrote:
...
The goal should be increasing the probability of interoperability
between devices from different vendors.
Exactly, which traditionally means a single mandatory-to-implement
protocol, even if it's the Tossacoin protocol. Whether vendors
take any
On 05/07/2014 02:10, Pierre Pfister wrote:
Hello Mikael,
There is indeed a quite large common basis between Homenet and ANIMA problem
spaces. It appears that Homenet is one of the case that is presented as a
possible use-case for the UCAN BoF (draft-carpenter-nmrg-homenet-an-use-case).
On 20/06/2014 01:03, Ted Lemon wrote:
...
Please do not discuss changes to other parts of the document, because it will
just waste the working group's time.
Nevertheless, this nit Mikael noticed should be fixed:
Since RFC6204 has been obsoleted by RFC7084, shouldn't we refer to 7084
On 14/06/2014 02:29, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net wrote:
Ted, you asked Ray and I to issue a WGLC on a very specific set of text. You
are falling into your own trap of going beyond that.
No, Mark, I agreed with Ray that the proposed text
the Anima discussion.
Brian
Original Message
Subject: Reading list
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:45:35 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Organization: University of Auckland
To: an...@ietf.org
Hi,
The very basic reading list for anima is:
http
Catching up on this thread (message times are based on NZST, UTC+12):
On 13/06/2014 00:45, Markus Stenberg wrote:
This sounds _way_ too specific to me.
I agree. Discussion of adding metrics together, although
it seems like Routing 101, just seems out of place.
On 13/06/2014 01:59, Ted Lemon
On 04/06/2014 01:34, Michael Richardson wrote:
Steven Barth cy...@openwrt.org wrote:
Well maybe it was worded a bit ambiguously. The main idea behind this
was
that an HNCP router should provide basic connectivity in the form of
DHCPv4 and DHCPv6-PD to non-HNCP-routers. 7084
On 22/04/2014 06:36, Lee Howard wrote:
On 4/18/14 11:56 AM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Apr 18, 2014, at 7:51 AM, Simon Perreault
simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca wrote:
Got it. So, summarizing, for Android, DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 options would
likely not be problematic, but an RA option
- The prefix assignment algorithm supports /128. I’m not sure we want Homenet
to have such ‘carve it into /128’ option. Homenet doesn’t want to do that.
It was pretty clear in 6man yesterday that there is little support
for longer subnet prefixes than 64, and they are forbidden by the
homenet
Hi,
draft-taht-kelley-hunt-dhcpv4-to-slaac-naming-00 says:
IPv6 hosts can acquire IPv6 addresses using
SLAAC, but there is no mechanism allowing them to register a name in
the DNS database other than a DNS update, which creates a very
difficult key management problem.
Can you
On 08/02/2014 00:20, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
Absolutely, but it means resetting DSCP, thus breaking QoS in other
parts
of the packet path.
Well to be more precise, it means making sure DSCP is a value that the
customer is allowed to use (or
On 06/02/2014 20:46, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We designed diffserv for this purpose and it works well and is quite
widely used in corporate networks. Wasting prefixes to distinguish
traffic types is an incredibly bad idea.
Problem with DSCP
On 05/02/2014 12:13, Michael Richardson wrote:
Pierre Pfister pierre.pfis...@darou.fr wrote:
...
For instance, if a prefix is for general purpose, and another is for voice
applications, then hosts may only get addresses for voice application, and
would therefore not being able to access the
Juliusz,
You (and others) who speak of a Homenet Configuration
Protocol seem to be making an assumption which is far from
clear to me. That assumption is that config parameters in a homenet
will come in some sense top-down from a higher level source of
authority.
I think that's a false
On 31/01/2014 10:53, Ole Troan wrote:
Brian,
requirements from homenet-arch (I might have missed some):
- must support multi-homing
- each link should be assigned a stable prefix
- efficient allocation of prefixes
- should support both IPv4 and IPv6
I think you need to add
- must allow
Seems relevant to homenet...
Original Message
Subject: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 07:11:28 -0800
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
Reply-To: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
A New Internet-Draft is available
On 25/09/2013 04:01, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Sep 24, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
wrote:
I believe that perhaps the title is now wrong.
I think that it should say:
Requirements for Home Networking for IPv6
(But, it's really more than requirements. It's just
On 20/09/2013 07:43, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Sep 19, 2013, at 1:36 PM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
I agree that it would be good for the working group to evolve the document
(see my previous comments about stabilizing the document and having a
discussion about unresolved issues). It
Hi Ray,
It' a great transcipt, but for those who were not present, can the chairs
add the summary and conclusions on each discussion?
Brian
On 02/04/2013 09:14, Ray Bellis wrote:
With massive thanks to Thomas Heide Clausen, the minutes of the Orlando
session are now online at:
On 19/03/2013 20:39, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 03/14/2013 01:43 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 13/03/2013 20:54, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Mar 13, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
All of this is lacking in section 3.7. If I were a contractor using
this architecture
I wouldn't
On 15/03/2013 18:49, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 03/15/2013 04:04 AM, Robert Cragie wrote:
On 14/03/2013 9:42 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 03/14/2013 10:03 AM, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com]
[...]
In today's world access control is gated at L2
On 15/03/2013 11:12, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
[...]
But I think the need goes beyond wireless. If I have visitors, I may not
like
it if they plug in a device into the Ethernet socket
On 13/03/2013 23:47, Michael Thomas wrote:
What I find most telling is that after 25 years, printers are still the
canonical
example of the need for SD. But printers have entire programs/wizards that
support their existence, so they're really lousy as a canonical example. It
would
be
On 14/03/2013 03:03, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
In the event the homenet is accessible from outside the homenet
(using the global name space), it is vital that the homenet name
space follow the rules and conventions of the global name space.
In this mode of operation, names in
On 26/02/2013 06:39, Fernando Gont wrote:
...
I've been lurking for the most time, so.. double-checking: essentially,
what you want is that you always keep DNS for nodes in the internal
network, and those entries remain up-to-date e.g. in the presence of
renumbering? (I guess dynamic updates
On 23/02/2013 05:53, Erik Kline wrote:
..
I wonder if we should ask the NOC about performing a renumbering
during the next IETF meeting.
Ideally, we should be able to perform one or two (or three)
renumberings in a week, glean the relevant operational experience, and
send a draft to v6ops
Michael asked:
Given happy eyeballs, how will we measure the impact of a v6-only
renumbering?
By a reduction in IPv6 traffic after the event?
In any case, to some extent it's a pass/fail test (where pass = no
complaints).
Regards
Brian
On 23/02/2013 08:27, Brian E Carpenter wrote
On 22/02/2013 21:11, james woodyatt wrote:
This problem is precisely why I campaigned bitterly and vigorously against
the adoption and V6OPS and later the publication of RFC 6177.
When there was still a consensus that subscribers should always get a /48
prefix
I think you must have
On 22/02/2013 16:54, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
...
BTW, a side-note on the issue of non-volatile memory. The OSPF autoconfig
draft says that an allocated prefix MUST be stored in non-volatile memory and
as a result survive a reboot. Speaking for myself, I don't see the need for
that; I'm
On 22/02/2013 04:50, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Feb 22, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Michael Richardson
m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
For a network where there is more than one ISP, is it
acceptable for a CPE that has decided that it is
PREFIX1:0123::/64, to randomly decide to be
PREFIX2:0123::/64?
I
On 22/02/2013 03:45, Michael Thomas wrote:
...
Well, if one of the requirements is that I be able to control my washing
machine from across the continent,
Actually we need to be clear about that requirement. There are
at least three cases I can imagine:
1. I want to control my washing machine
On 21/02/2013 19:23, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
...
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-flowlabel-routing
Using IS-IS with Role-Based Access Control, Fred Baker, 17-Feb-13
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing
IPv6 Source/Destination Routing using
I went through the draft, and noticed an instance of the word hoemnet in
section 2.4.
Otherwise I think this is now in good shape for publication.
Regards
Brian
On 12/02/2013 15:00, Ray Bellis wrote:
This email marks the commencement of Working Group Last Call for
This seems useful as background for a homenet security analysis:
http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2013/1/158768-computer-security-and-the-modern-home/fulltext
Regards
Brian Carpenter
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
Ole,
On 16/11/2012 09:28, Ole Trøan wrote:
James,
However notionally easy this problem is to address, I imagine that
practical matters, at some point, must rise to the top of the pile of
points to consider.
Those hosts are broken. They can't work in a multi-homed environment.
Those
On 14/11/2012 22:44, james woodyatt wrote:
On Nov 14, 2012, at 13:34 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
I've always seen it to be solved via some kind of source based routing
automatically discovered between the ISP routers.
My point is that it isn't sufficient to handle this
On 13/11/2012 21:05, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 11/13/2012 09:22 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
Each and every part of the router must do everything it can to work
without bugging the user. it's enough work to bother them for the
*really* important stuff like do I let this device on the network?,
On 12/11/2012 17:33, Mark Townsley wrote:
Nice to see a constructive thread with suggested text for the editors of the
homenet arch, thank you.
I'm concerned with any issue a warning type suggestions though. We are
working hard to develop automatic configuration that assumes there is no
On 08/11/2012 09:48, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Wuyts Carl wrote:
Well, being a residential CPE vendor, I can confirm some of our
customers deploy /64 only to the CPE. Not recommended by us, but being
a managed CPE, it's the customer making the final decision on this.
On 08/11/2012 12:05, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Nov 8, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Fine, but when such an end customer buys a second router and plugs it in,
will she get an error message that says Please find a new ISP?
In this case I think our only
On 08/11/2012 13:45, Mattia Rossi wrote:
On 08/11/2012 12:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 08/11/2012 12:05, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Nov 8, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Fine, but when such an end customer buys a second router and plugs
On 08/11/2012 13:41, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Robert Cragie wrote:
In a lot of these conversations, the lightswitch guys (as someone
called the LLN proponents) seem to get forgotten.
So let's just say that giving a single /64 to the home is incompatible
with homenet
On 22/10/2012 18:30, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/22/2012 09:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 19/10/2012 18:16, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/19/2012 09:36 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
We can take comments towards a -06 over the weekend. The most
substantial changes are in the Naming and Service
On 19/10/2012 18:16, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/19/2012 09:36 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
We can take comments towards a -06 over the weekend. The most
substantial changes are in the Naming and Service Discovery section
(3.7), so if you have limited time please focus your reading there.
One
Curtis Damien,
On 01/10/2012 19:01, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
In message 50698d7f.5000...@gmail.com
Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 01/10/2012 08:32, Damien Saucez wrote:
Curtis,
Thank you for the comments.
Our target in this document is to raise the question of multihoming
in personal
On 25/09/2012 02:01, Don Sturek wrote:
Hi Curtis,
I would expect most Wi-Fi AP manufacturers to support the same address
assignment they do today (ie, manual assignment and DHCP). I would also
expect as more IPv6 deployments happen that SLAAC will also be supported
(and, yes, even for
On 13/09/2012 21:15, David R Oran wrote:
On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 09/12/2012 06:57 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
My machines have names. Those names don't change as I move around
the world.
On 11/09/2012 08:19, Ray Bellis wrote:
...
So the point of the original email was to test that first assumption - i.e.
what services don't (or can't) work in-home without a local unicast DNS zone.
Excuse my ignorance, but if a LAN has both mDNS and DNS available,
what happens when an app calls
On 11/09/2012 14:11, Simon Perreault wrote:
Le 2012-09-11 05:17, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
Excuse my ignorance, but if a LAN has both mDNS and DNS available,
what happens when an app calls getnameinfo() ?
Current situation is: implementation-dependant.
In fact, getnameinfo
On 10/09/2012 13:34, Ray Bellis wrote:
An interesting question has come up during the Arch Doc team's discussions
around naming and service discovery:
What in-home services actually require Unicast DNS lookup? [*]
Well, that isn't the right question IMNSHO.
The one obvious case is in-home
editors queue.
Don
On 9/10/12 6:53 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 10/09/2012 14:09, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 10 Sep 2012, at 13:58, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Using literal addresses is evil for many reasons - surely we don't
need
To be completely clear:
Original Message
Subject: building a home theater
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:13:40 -0700
From: Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com
To: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
CC: Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk,homenet@ietf.org Group
homenet
Two quick comments, and then I suggest we drop this thread here.
On 12/08/2012 17:18, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
In message 502367bd.3010...@gmail.com
Brian E Carpenter writes:
I get the impression that if NAT didn't exist, then
draft-carpenter-referral-ps would server no purpose
On 08/08/2012 19:52, Evan Hunt wrote:
Except, of course, that it's not a DN at all: it's not a domain
name.
Also not qualified, as long as we're quibbling. But I do think the
distinction between FQDN and thing we're talking about is a useful one
to have terminology for, and LQDN does get
firewalls -
router ACLs for example. Certainly NAT is the major cause today (and
NPTv6 will propagate the problem into IPv6). v4-only and v6-only
islands will probably arise too.
Regards
Brian
On 08/08/2012 19:39, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
In message 5022557f.5050...@gmail.com
Brian E Carpenter writes
All this talk about tunnels and names made me think that people
might be interested in the Signpost project, mainly based at
the Computer Lab in Cambridge where I am currently a visitor.
I think this project is a proof of concept for ideas being
discussed here.
On 07/08/2012 20:11, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 08/07/2012 11:46 AM, Kerry Lynn wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Evan Hunt e...@isc.org wrote:
Tunnels are okay, but to use them, but has to get the DNS search order
and the DNS server list right, and that's walled garden territory.
*If* we
On 07/08/2012 16:39, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
In message 501a502d.30...@gmail.com
Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 01/08/2012 15:39, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
In message 5018dd8a.2070...@gmail.com
Brian E Carpenter writes:
Excuse front posting, but...
Today there is no DHCP help
On 06/08/2012 04:28, Evan Hunt wrote:
i wasn't able to participate in this discussion because I had other
business during homenet, but I'm a bit frustrated by this conclusion.
I was speaking for myself and I believe the issue is in flux; please
don't take it as a conclusion. :)
IMHO, we
On 05/08/2012 07:58, Ray Hunter wrote:
I disagree. The context of my message is that there should be some
identifier that can disambiguate the namespace per Homenet.
That's what I meant too. The only point is to avoid ambiguity in the
namespace. The only reason for using a ULA prefix to create
On 01/08/2012 15:39, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
In message 5018dd8a.2070...@gmail.com
Brian E Carpenter writes:
Excuse front posting, but...
Today there is no DHCP help in avoiding the please reboot messages.
Don't RECONFIGURE (DHCPv6) and FORCERENEW (DHCP) cover this, in theory
On 02/08/2012 06:58, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
Same answer as one given on that thread. If a device can support
IPv4, then use NAT4. If a device can only support IPv6, then the
DNS64 belongs on the IPv6-only device. To that device all host
On 01/08/2012 05:48, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
...
fridge.sitelocal. is a FQDN with site local scope.
And therefore intrinsically evil, just like 10.0.0.0/8 is intrinsically evil.
IMHO we shouldn't be discussing how to make it work less badly; we should
be discussing how to avoid it entirely.
/2012 04:33, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
In message 50181a1c.5050...@gmail.com
Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 31/07/2012 17:59, Michael Richardson wrote:
Brian == Brian E Carpenter Brian writes:
I'm also surprised that we think we have to cope with flash
renumbering
as a regular event
On 31/07/2012 19:23, Michael Richardson wrote:
Brian == Brian E Carpenter Brian writes:
Brian But every time you reboot your antiquated v4-only CPE and/or the
antiquated
Brian v4-only PCs behind it, the PCs all get new IP addresses, which may
or
Brian may not be the same
Synthesise a pseudo-TLD from the ULA prefix.
Brian
On 01/08/2012 15:17, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
In message 5018d80c.90...@gmail.com
Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 01/08/2012 05:48, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
...
fridge.sitelocal. is a FQDN with site local scope.
And therefore
On 31/07/2012 00:06, Michael Richardson wrote:
...
I'm also surprised that we think we have to cope with flash renumbering
as a regular event, rather than a service-interrupting, ISP truck roll
catastrophy.
But every time you reboot your antiquated v4-only CPE and/or the antiquated
v4-only
On 10/07/2012 17:18, Michael Thomas wrote:
...
Third, maybe we do not need more than one secure .local name server
in a network that has more than one router.
Seriously, I can see my neighbor's wifi, and I have access to his
(guest) net. This problem is already here.
.local is a problem in
On 2012-06-29 19:19, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
...
b) Homenet name-service MUST NOT be in Internet name space.
How are things in the home identified from outside the homenet?
They will have to have two names one internal and one externally visible.
Exactly. This has been standard practice
On 2012-05-07 20:27, Michael Richardson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I read this document just now.
What I understand is that level-2+ routers go to the ISP to get an
additional /64. The ISP could return anything... it might be good if it
returned a /64 adjacent
Can we either have a problem statement draft or declare this out of scope?
IMHO it's a legitimate topic but probably one for later.
Regards
Brian
On 2012-05-07 22:20, Dan Wing wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 11:51 AM
On 2012-03-30 20:35, Michael Richardson wrote:
Brian == Brian E Carpenter Brian writes:
Brian Front posting: I think we are using walled garden to mean
Brian several things and that is confusing.
Brian In my mind it refers to a captive customer scenario where a
Brian service
the Internet by a security fence of some kind and
may also need a local namespace. I thought that was normally called
an intranet.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2012-03-30 00:48, Michael Richardson wrote:
Brian == Brian E Carpenter Brian writes:
I much prefer to engineer for walled gardens using
On 2012-03-29 01:01, Michael Richardson wrote:
Erik == Erik Kline e...@google.com writes:
Erik Mark,
Erik For the record, the walled garden citation I quoted was from:
Erik http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3002#section-4.2
yes, I found it during the meeting.
I think you
On 2012-03-27 20:59, Aamer Akhter (aakhter) wrote:
...
Sec 3.4.11
The home network may receive an arbitrary length IPv6 prefix
from its provider, e.g. /60 or /56. The offered prefix may be stable
over time or change from time to time.
It is unclear if only the prefix, or also the
Dave,
On 2012-03-28 09:28, Dave Taht wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-03-22 12:33, homenet issue tracker wrote:
#4: Use of ULAs
CN1 in the -02 text says ULAs should be provisioned by default. Do we
agree?
Yes
On 2012-03-22 12:37, homenet issue tracker wrote:
#6: Support for arbitrary topologies
We currently state that homenets should support arbitrary topologies
(SD1). There have been some comments that this might not be realistic.
Should we continue to shoot for that?
The users will create
101 - 200 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
