Re: [homenet] RFC 7788 and ".home"

On 7/20/16 6:01 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: > >> On Jul 20, 2016, at 11:50 AM 7/20/16, Juliusz Chroboczek >> wrote: >> We want something short and memorable. ".co.uk" is short and memorable. ".univ-paris-diderot.fr" is not. >> >>> Why? This is, I

Re: [homenet] Site-local multicast [was: Updating DNS]

On 4/24/16 5:00 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> Assuming you've got only transitive links, then any multicast routing >> protocol should work fine at the scale we envision for Homenet as long as >> it is able to avoid wireless links whenever possible. Pierre was >> suggesting PIM-BIDIR, and

Re: [homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Steven, Your response look good except for... On 11/20/15 4:07 AM, Steven Barth wrote: > >> * The definition of Leaf in 5.1 is unclear. It says "Such an interface >> uses the Internal category with the exception that HNCP traffic MUST NOT >> be sent on the interface, and all such

[homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https

[homenet] Fwd: New Non-WG Mailing List: Mcast-wifi -- Discussions related to issues with multicast in 802.11 Wi-Fi networks & solutions/optimizations targeted at resolving these issues.

All, Apologies for the spam, but I think this is relevant to a number of WGs. If you have an interest in the interactions between IP multicast and 802.11 networks, please join the list and contribute to the discussion. Regards, Brian Forwarded Message Subject: New Non-WG

[homenet] Brian Haberman's Abstain on draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-10: (with COMMENT)

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-10: Abstain When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https

Re: [homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 9/15/15 4:00 PM, Markus Stenberg wrote: > On 15.9.2015, at 22.10, Brian Haberman <br...@innovationslab.net> > wrote: >>> >>> A_NC_I calculation does not depend on how you synchronize things >>> (full state dump <> delta). It is mostly about val

[homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https

Re: [homenet] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 7/8/15 5:25 PM, Pierre Pfister wrote: Hello Brian, Thanks for the comments. See inline for comments and proposals. Le 8 juil. 2015 à 17:34, Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net a écrit : Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-homenet

Re: [homenet] Source Address Dependent Routing - draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-00

On 9/10/14 11:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: My point was the even if this draft is accepted by 6MAN, standardized, and even implemented some day, it doesn’t satisfy the HOMENET multi-homed routing requirement. I don't get it. Could you

Re: [homenet] Homenet protocol decisions

Speaking as an interested observer only... On 1/31/14 3:57 AM, Teco Boot wrote: +1 I can see reasons for having shared sub-layer for routing protocol and prefix distribution protocol. As example, in MANET we have such already: RFC 5444 and 5498. If we define a set of TLVs for border router

[homenet] Multicast scoping

All, I seem to be the bane of homenet given my stance on multicast scope zones. Probably because I am a co-author on RFC 4007. :) After some discussions, it seems there is a reasonable way to allow the homenet arch to use the admin-scope multicast range. My original concern, as