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?,
Op 13 nov. 2012, om 21:19 heeft Simon Kelley het volgende geschreven:
On 13/11/12 19:04, Jim Gettys wrote:
So the recursive DHCP-PD scheme strikes me as something possibly very
fragile. I really, really don't want to repeat the experience I had with
having extra DHCP servers, and I would
On 14/11/12 12:08, Teco Boot wrote:
The one-and-only DHCP server knows about all the prefixes delegated
from the ISP and the relays know which particular prefix has been
given to the local router by the routing protocol or AHCP.
I don't like a single DHCP server for multi-homed sites. This
On 13/11/2012 17:47, james woodyatt wrote:
On Nov 13, 2012, at 10:33 , Randy Turner rtur...@amalfisystems.com wrote:
I've been away from the list for awhile, and am trying to catch up -- is there a reference or quick
explanation as to why a /64 assigned to a home network is considered to be
On Nov 14, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 14/11/2012 02:34, Randy Turner wrote:
I was thinking that, in an effort to reduce scope to something we can deal
with for now, that a /64 would be big enough
It simply isn't, because it doesn't allow
Op 14 nov. 2012, om 16:07 heeft Ted Lemon het volgende geschreven:
On Nov 14, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 14/11/2012 02:34, Randy Turner wrote:
I was thinking that, in an effort to reduce scope to something we can deal
with for now, that a /64
On 11/14/2012 07:07 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
BTW, a little more on that topic: the reason that two DHCP servers on the same
wire broke Jim's network in a flaky way is that IPv4 doesn't handle the
multi-homing case. IPv6 deliberately places the multi-homing case in-scope.
This creates a bit
Op 14 nov. 2012, om 16:58 heeft Michael Thomas het volgende geschreven:
On 11/14/2012 07:07 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
BTW, a little more on that topic: the reason that two DHCP servers on the
same wire broke Jim's network in a flaky way is that IPv4 doesn't handle the
multi-homing case.
Please, let's not OD on DHCP in this thread: while I was making a point
about DHCP, I was really making a more general point about robustness in
homenet, and how to judge various proposals, more than specifically
attacking recursive DHCP-PD as a concept.
Similarly, I think as another goal we have
On 14/11/12 16:24, Jim Gettys wrote:
Please, let's not OD on DHCP in this thread: while I was making a point
about DHCP, I was really making a more general point about robustness in
homenet, and how to judge various proposals, more than specifically
attacking recursive DHCP-PD as a concept.
I'm not against one or more /64 bit prefixes for a home net, if everyone else
(including the ISPs) think that home networks should be able to scale up to
18,446,744,073,709,551,615 hosts, I'm completely on board. It's not my
resource, so I'll take all they give me. :) It would be nice to
On Nov 13, 2012, at 21:30 , joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 11/13/12 9:20 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Why do you believe we need coordination between service providers to permit
multihomed services to work well? I thought the whole idea was to handle
multiple upstream prefixes
On Nov 14, 2012, at 17:22 , Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
james My point is that it isn't sufficient to handle this problem
james at just the routers. At a minimum, the *hosts* need to be
james told which default router to use with each source prefix.
james
On Nov 14, 2012, at 4:44 PM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
My point is that it isn't sufficient to handle this problem at just the
routers. At a minimum, the *hosts* need to be told which default router to
use with each source prefix. Right now the only mechanism that comes close to
14 matches
Mail list logo
