Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

2019-10-07 Thread RayH
On 7 Oct 2019 17:03, Ted Lemon wrote:On Oct 7, 2019, at 10:00 AM, RayH <v6...@globis.net> wrote:Why does an ISP have to add complexity to their network in order to support Homenet?If the ISP is on the hook for support, then “their network” includes your home network.If that's their business

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

2019-10-07 Thread RayH
On 7 Oct 2019 16:37, Ted Lemon wrote:On Oct 7, 2019, at 9:15 AM, RayH <v6...@globis.net> wrote:My preferred path would be to look at why Homenet hasn't been rolled out.If it's because manufacturers aren't updating boxes at all, or even ipv6 at all as per my local internet non-service pr

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

2019-10-07 Thread RayH
On 7 Oct 2019 15:47, Michael Richardson wrote: Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:     >> The deployment challenge of that is that every router must support HNCP and     >> must support SADR.     > Yes, there is indeed a problem here with incremental deployment.     > That's why I think there

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

2019-09-20 Thread RayH
Hi,I've done some more investigation and the "problem" packet size growth looks to be the result of a single UDP reply packet containing multiple node state TLV's.This reply is triggered by a query from a new node joining an existing network, where the new node requests node TLV updates for all of

Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

2019-09-19 Thread RayH
) or a standards issue (all node TLV's must be transmitted when the network TLV changes).Regards,RayH > On Sep 19, 2019, at 04:56, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > >  >> >> This still doesn’t address the problem that the HNCP packet needs to be >> fragmented.  Fragmented Multicast do

[homenet] Discussion on draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming-03

2019-07-26 Thread RayH
Hi, I've re-read this draft and have some questions and comments.The draft seems to assume a typical primary secondary DNS set up configured using HNCP.I checked but couldn't see explicit details of the election process for determining which node would become master for the base zone e.g.

Re: [homenet] final planning for not formally meeting

2019-07-20 Thread RayH
On 20 Jul 2019 20:07, Ted Lemon wrote:On Jul 20, 2019, at 9:49 AM, RayH <v6...@globis.net> wrote:This (expired) draft?https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming-03Yes.We decided to get some implementation experience before proceeding, and it hasn’t popped to the top of the

Re: [homenet] final planning for not formally meeting

2019-07-20 Thread RayH
we can implement that and see what happens. :)Sure.Sent from my iPhoneOn Jul 20, 2019, at 4:46 AM, RayH <v6...@globis.net> wrote:> If anybody is interested in building what I’m building, I can supply some pointers. Please. A working build chain would save a lot of effort. I'm on vacation n

Re: [homenet] final planning for not formally meeting

2019-07-20 Thread RayH
> If anybody is interested in building what I’m building, I can supply some pointers. Please. A working build chain would save a lot of effort. I'm on vacation now, but I should have some time when I get back.> Stuart and I have four AR750S routers between us. The challenge will be figuring out