I apologise that I did not organise my thoughts well earlier,
so I will try to complete -- hopefully in a more clear way
-- the thoughts I was trying to express earlier in the WG mtg.
TERMINOLOGY;
Anyplace I say home or residence below, I also
mean to include small business or any other
On 25 Jul 2014, at 15:31 , Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
If I understand you right, you're pushing for an approach where
Not correct. I'm not pushing for anything.
Yours,
Ran
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
On 25 Jul 2014, at 12:52 , Ted Lemon wrote:
So this seems more like an argument ...
Ted,
To be clear, since you seem confused, my comments
were not an argument for or against anything,
just a set of observations.
Cheers,
Ran
___
homenet mailing
I concur with Tom Pusateri, Markus Stenberg, Ted Lemon, and others:
- A layer-2 solution is not deployable in the full range of HomeNet
environments.
- Many link layers do not use any form of IEEE 802. So RBRIDGE and
TRILL and similar are not deployable over many applicable link
On 6th February 2014, Brian Carpenter said, in part:
We designed diffserv for this purpose and it works well
and is quite widely used in corporate networks.
Yes.
Purely as an example, one of my clients is using the IP ToS/DSCP
byte to distinguish between various kinds of traffic inside
Consistent with previous comments by many others, and in my
personal opinion, the following items ought to be out-of-scope
for the HomeNet documents (and WG activities):
* CPE devices that don't comply with IETF IPv6 specifications
(e.g. a CPE device that only can cope with a /64 prefix
On 25 Oct 2012, at 20:33 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
I'm also nervous about both DNS authorisation
and DNS authentication. Who is allowed to make
which DNS advertisements and how do I authenticate
the received DNS advertisement as both valid and
authorised ?
I don't see a difference.
On 26 Oct 2012, at 12:24 , Stephen Farrell wrote:
My understanding is that 3118 is fictional,
i.e. is never deployed, ever. As an AD, I generally
push back on any draft where the security considerations
say use 3118 and you'll be fine.
If I'm wrong, I'd be interested in knowing that
and
Earlier, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
...DNSSEC cannot be used for validation with mDNS because
the actual mDNS name is [some string].local., ...
mDNS can, and regularly is, also used to transport
DNS information outside the .local pseudo-TLD.
The mDNS specification explicitly says that mDNS
also
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:11:18 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote, in part:
...from the border router which discovered the DNS entries
for tvservice.jp, inject those DNS servers into the mesh
with a tag that they only be used for tvservice.jp,
and pass that around in the routing protocol. No?
I'm
I agree with Lorenzo Colitti, Ted Lemon, James Woodyatt, and
various others about the adverse operational impacts of using
NPT66.
So I also agree that the Home Net Architecture document (and
any other applicable Home Net documents) ought to clearly
indicate that NPT66 is NOT part of the HomeNet
On 01 Oct 2012, at 15:01 , Curtis Villamizar wrote:
You are suggesting if A then !B.
No, my apologies for being unclear.
I am NOT, repeat NOT, suggesting that.
(A !B) is a possible deployment option, of course,
but it is not the ONLY option either.
I prefer if A and B, then C.
I
12 matches
Mail list logo
