On Mar 2, 2015, at 7:32 PM, Curtis Villamizar cur...@ipv6.occnc.com wrote:
In message 7615609f-512e-42aa-a2e7-4dbb31f1a...@chopps.org
Christian Hopps writes:
Hi homenet-wg,
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used
(with proper TLV additions) to completely
On 03/03/2015 05:55 AM, David Oran wrote:
On Mar 2, 2015, at 9:05 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 03/02/2015 01:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/03/2015 09:12, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm doubtful that routing protocols need PSK's. They almost certainly
would like to share a
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 07:31:56AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
Considering that provisioning personal certificates is the almost the
polar opposite of zeroconf, the chances
of the normal schlub seeing an informative and/or trustworthy name are
really, really low.
You might want to
Well, draft-pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-01 describes a way to
bootstrap a certificate infrastructure, zero touch. Once every device in a
domain has a domain certificate, two devices can directly authenticate each
other, without PSK. Then you can also authenticate a key negotiation
On Mar 2, 2015, at 9:05 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 03/02/2015 01:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/03/2015 09:12, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm doubtful that routing protocols need PSK's. They almost certainly
would like to share a symmetric key(s) but
is not the same
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:48:24PM -0500, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
The way IETF has normally done things is to allow multiple
developments to exist if they have support and then drop only those
that are not being deployed or prove to be less desirable.
Having multiple examples of running
On 03/03/2015 09:12, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 03/02/2015 11:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/03/2015 08:38, Michael Thomas wrote:
Well, draft-pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-01 describes a way
to bootstrap a certificate infrastructure, zero touch. Once every
device in a domain has
On 2.3.2015, at 21.34, Michael Behringer (mbehring) mbehr...@cisco.com wrote:
Then one can always discuss what kind of information could go into each
protocol after bootstrap. Perhaps what we actually need is a new bootstrap
security protocol (not only for homenet), and that this is where the
On 03/02/2015 01:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/03/2015 09:12, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm doubtful that routing protocols need PSK's. They almost certainly
would like to share a symmetric key(s) but
is not the same thing.
But they need to agree on the shared key(s) securely, and the
Hi Curtis,
The main reason for going forward with IS-IS over OSPFv3 is that there was
an open source implementation willing to implement and support all the
enhancements necessary for Homenet. Admittedly, the source/destination
routing requirement makes the entrance barrier a bit higher for
Regards
Brian Carpenter
http://orcid.org/-0001-7924-6182
On 03/03/2015 15:05, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 03/02/2015 01:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/03/2015 09:12, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm doubtful that routing protocols need PSK's. They almost
certainly would like to
On 03/02/2015 06:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
so you're mollified if somebody's cert says hi i'm
1232345245213452345...@lkajsdlfjasdfds.clasjdflakjsdfk.ladsjflakjsfdls.xxx
instead?
the possession of a cert does nothing in and of itself to make an
enrollment decision.
No, of course not. That
In message c8e13842-f1d9-4768-86a7-3b2ea1e56...@chopps.org
Christian Hopps writes:
On Mar 2, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used
(with proper TLV additions) to completely
In message 7615609f-512e-42aa-a2e7-4dbb31f1a...@chopps.org
Christian Hopps writes:
Hi homenet-wg,
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used
(with proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were
used as the homenet protocol. If true should we be
In message 87twy3wjtr.wl-...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
I got my hands on ISO 10589 today and tried to very briefly glance through
it. And personally I had a really hard time getting into it.
Having read the comparison document beforehand I haven't found
On Mar 2, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Steven Barth cy...@openwrt.org wrote:
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used (with
proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were used as the
homenet protocol. If true should we be calling this out more explicitly
On 2.3.2015, at 15.55, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I think Markus' comments on security are also very important to consider
here, as some sort of integrated security mechanism between the routing
protocol and HNCP might be strongly
I got my hands on ISO 10589 today and tried to very briefly glance through
it. And personally I had a really hard time getting into it.
Having read the comparison document beforehand I haven't found anything
about IPv4, IPv6, HMACs, wide-metrics or other things that are mentioned
in the
Hi homenet-wg,
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used (with
proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were used as the
homenet protocol. If true should we be calling this out more explicitly in the
document?
Thanks,
Chris.
On 2.3.2015, at 15.00, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used
(with proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were
used as the homenet protocol.
I see that you've been speaking with
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used
(with proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were
used as the homenet protocol.
I see that you've been speaking with Abrahamsson. Please let me give you
some background.
Two years ago, there was a very
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:33:47AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used (with
proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were used as the
homenet protocol. If true should we be calling this out more explicitly
Thanks for the quick reply. Looks like I will be having something to
read on the plane to Dallas.
On 02.03.2015 15:56, Christian Hopps wrote:
On Mar 2, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Steven Barth cy...@openwrt.org wrote:
One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used (with
proper
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
The next version of cerowrt will do translation from the external IPv6
address range to a static internal one (or ones, in the case of
multiple egress gateways), and lacking a standard for such will use
fcxx/8
If we carry NAT over to IPV6, then shame on us.
I am sorry, I no longer share this opinion [...] The next version of
cerowrt will do translation from the external IPv6 address range to
a static internal one (or ones, in the case of multiple egress
gateways),
(Insert strong expression of
On Mar 2, 2015, at 1:59 PM 3/2/15, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
If we carry NAT over to IPV6, then shame on us.
I am sorry, I no longer share this opinion [...] The next version of
cerowrt will do translation from the external IPv6 address range to
a static
: Re: [homenet] routing protocol comparison document and hncp
On 2.3.2015, at 15.55, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I think Markus' comments on security are also very important to consider
here, as some sort of integrated security
-Original Message-
From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Markus
Stenberg
Sent: 02 March 2015 15:11
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: homenet@ietf.org; Markus Stenberg; Margaret Wasserman; Christian
Hopps
Subject: Re: [homenet] routing protocol comparison document
On 03/02/2015 11:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/03/2015 08:38, Michael Thomas wrote:
Well, draft-pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-01 describes a way
to bootstrap a certificate infrastructure, zero touch. Once every
device in a domain has a domain certificate, two devices can
In message caa93jw4tumfm_lvzkrx7ark2z+hwtw5jboenpvfejut4l9t...@mail.gmail.com
Dave Taht writes:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Curtis Villamizar
cur...@ipv6.occnc.com wrote:
In message 54ee258e.8060...@gmail.com
Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 26/02/2015 05:14, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
In message 17359.1424897...@sandelman.ca
Michael Richardson writes:
Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net wrote:
I agree that WiFi roaming is a problem that needs addressing in
Homenet.
Yes, but can we rule it out of scope for now?
Can we agree that it's not strictly a routing
I am glad, incidentally, that for the first time, this wg is
considering some of the problems wifi has, and growing towards
understanding them in more detail. I have long been working on finding
answers to these deep, underlying problems - after first identifying
some the major ones:
In message 54ee258e.8060...@gmail.com
Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 26/02/2015 05:14, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Ray Hunter wrote:
That way the devices can roam at L3, without all of the nasty side effects
of re-establishing TPC sessions, or updating
dynamic
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Curtis Villamizar
cur...@ipv6.occnc.com wrote:
In message 54ee258e.8060...@gmail.com
Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 26/02/2015 05:14, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Ray Hunter wrote:
That way the devices can roam at L3, without all of the
When performance in dual stack networks with multiple WiFi AP's in homes
suffers from homenet protocols, this WG produces dead protocols.
Why would homenet cause wifi APs to suffer more than they do today?
I think Teco was reacting to the suggestion that we perform wifi-wifi
bridging at a
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Teco Boot t...@inf-net.nl wrote:
Op 25 feb. 2015, om 22:00 heeft Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net het
volgende geschreven:
On Feb 25, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
wrote:
Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net wrote:
I
Op 25 feb. 2015, om 22:00 heeft Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net het
volgende geschreven:
On Feb 25, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
wrote:
Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net wrote:
I agree that WiFi roaming is a problem that needs addressing in
Homenet.
Op 26 feb. 2015, om 13:56 heeft Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net het
volgende geschreven:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Teco Boot t...@inf-net.nl wrote:
Op 25 feb. 2015, om 22:00 heeft Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net het
volgende geschreven:
On Feb 25, 2015, at 9:50
On 26/02/2015 05:14, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Ray Hunter wrote:
That way the devices can roam at L3, without all of the nasty side effects
of re-establishing TPC sessions, or updating
dynamic naming services, or having to run an L2 overlay network everywhere,
or
On Feb 25, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net wrote:
I agree that WiFi roaming is a problem that needs addressing in
Homenet.
Yes, but can we rule it out of scope for now?
Yes, we can.
I think the WG needs to focus on
So assuming some decent high-power 802.11ac in the Bradford house
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Is_Enough) to link the per-room router to
legacy 802.11b and per-person (phone) router to BTLE/PAN, it means we have
about 30 routers on the wifi.
I'm under opposing pressures relating to
Hi Michael,
The work on the document is being done on https://github.com/choppsv1
and I try to keep an up-to-date version of the generated files on
http://www.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~jch/private/draft-mrw-homenet-rtg-comparison-XX.html
Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
So assuming some decent high-power 802.11ac in the Bradford house
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Is_Enough) to link the per-room
router to
legacy 802.11b and per-person (phone) router to BTLE/PAN, it means we
have
So, there are limitations like:
struct router all_the_routers[256];
and then there are protocol collapses due to taking the entire channel for
adjacencies as happened with OLPC.
We're in full agreement about most of what you say. Are you happy with
the current wording, or are you suggesting
On 2/19/15 9:22 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
smart rate limiting.
ISIS already has these kinds of rate-limiting of how things are
happening. In modern core routers this is often tuned
If you need to tune it, it's not smart enough.
To be fair, network operators have somewhat different
ISIS already has these kinds of rate-limiting of how things are
happening. In modern core routers this is often tuned
If you need to tune it, it's not smart enough.
To be fair, network operators have somewhat different priorities,
Yes, that was a cheap shot. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
--
{my comments before reading the ~170 messages on this thread.}
comparison [Isn't it also the case that the HOMENET routing protocol will
comparison be implemented on lower-end embedded devices, such as nodes in
comparison a low-power wireless network? What is considered to be a
comparison
Margaret Wasserman margaret...@gmail.com wrote:
More generally, I think -01 puts undue stress on scaling and
convergence speed. Sections 3 and 4 can be summarised as any
reasonable routing protocol scales sufficiently well and converges
sufficiently fast for the needs of
Op 20 feb. 2015, om 10:57 heeft Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se het
volgende geschreven:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Andrew Mcgregor wrote:
Why? PIM and MLD snooping are pretty standard on very low-end enterprise
switches, which will be next year's midrange consumer models. If the
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Teco Boot wrote:
Do you have CAT6 to WiFi APs in every room? Can you share experience
with moving WiFi devices?
No, my apartment is covered by a single 5GHz AP in the center of the
apartment.
I mainly use cabled connections for media players and similar devices
since
Thanks sharing this.
What I can add:
Our house is a little bit bigger. It was formerly a farmhouse. It has a stone
firewall between living room and formerly hay storage place. This firewall is
quit good in blocking RF.
My production network has 2 dual band APs. I have good indoor coverage. In
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Teco Boot wrote:
Back to the subject: What are the requirements of a high performance
WiFi home network to the homenet routing protocol? I guess we don't
know.
Within the current framework to solve this problem with what exists today
when it comes to clients, I would
So Teco, to satisfy your use case, which I share, you would actually need the
homenet to identify all Wifi access points that are being used to serve hosts,
and treat those as a single subnet, correct?
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
Mikael,
Back to the subject: What are the requirements of a high performance WiFi
home network to the homenet routing protocol? I guess we don't know.
Within the current framework to solve this problem with what exists today
when it comes to clients, I would say we need either:
1. HNCP
There are good proposal how to do servicce discovery in homenets or the
like with DNS-SD (/mDNS), but i think we should still worry about
compatibility with UPnP. Both of these requirements (UPnP and DNS-SD) are
IMHO better solved with router-level proxy
solutions than with ASM IP multicast.
I have seen more L2 switches that have broken IGMP/MLD snooping than
working ones. I am not aware of real proliferation of PIM snooping.
Snooping in transit LANs with PIM is a bad idea anyhow, and i have
tried to steer any customer who asked me away from it.
Bidir-PIM makes snooping particularily
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 02:57:21PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
L3 - route injection (got a routing protocol there already, use it)
This sounds like it needs at least a coordination protocol between the APs?
NO, just between the first-hop (homenet) routers. Should work with unchanged
of
Were you before me?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet/current/msg00971.html
(November 2011)
More than three years later, same discussion. That makes me sad.
Teco
Op 20 feb. 2015, om 15:14 heeft Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com het volgende
geschreven:
On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:22 AM,
On 02/18/2015 11:54 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015, Michael Thomas wrote:
But we're not talking about an interpreted language in the forwarding
plane, right? Is the load from routing protocols we're talking about
likely to have any noticeable effect on the the forwarding
I don't know. Homenet multicast is an open issue. But I don't think this
use case represents a serious problem, because as far as I can tell streaming
video is not done using multicast in practice anyway.
Sorry, bad assumption. I just finished working on a TV streaming project for
an
Has the group considered a Bier model for multicast in the home?
On 2/20/15, 9:41 AM, Toerless Eckert eck...@cisco.com wrote:
I have seen more L2 switches that have broken IGMP/MLD snooping than
working ones. I am not aware of real proliferation of PIM snooping.
Snooping in transit LANs with
L3 - route injection (got a routing protocol there already, use it)
Yes, just put a stub router on the host and advertise /128.
As far as I'm aware, current HNCP doesn't provide a way for a host to
request a subnet-independent /128. What's the thinking on that? Just
grab a /128 from whichever
I am not mandating that each and every device is in its own broadcast
domain, I am however advocating that we leave the model that has been
prevalent for 10-15 years at least, ie that a home gateway has a WAN
port and 4 LAN ports, and these 4 ports are bridged.
You certainly have a point --
Hi Barbara,
OTT video does not use multicast. IPTV deployments do use multicast. Those
that I'm aware of require use of the provider-supplied CE router, which has
an IGMP proxy (and MLD proxy if IPv6 multicast is supported) for LAN-to-WAN
multicast management. Where Wi-Fi distribution of
Lets hope UPnP/DLNA are starting to consider to cooperate with IETF on
service discovery.
Cooperate is such a strong word. :) They are aware of the issue, they will be
kept informed as to how the issue is progressing and what homenet and dnsext
are doing to tackle the issue, and they know
On Feb 20, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
Has the group considered a Bier model for multicast in the home?
As in a place where you put dead people?
Bier is a new working group in the routing area.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bier/charter/
Thanks, Barbara.
Lets hope UPnP/DLNA are starting to consider to cooperate with IETF on service
discovery.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 02:37:38PM +, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
There are good proposal how to do servicce discovery in homenets or the
like with DNS-SD (/mDNS), but i think we
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Toerless Eckert wrote:
So foremost, it would be good to understand if there really is home L2
equipment that MUST see MLD to operate correctly. Otherwise i'd happily
ignore the problem and say there is enough bandwidth to just NOT DO
snooping but have multicast be flooded
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Markus Stenberg wrote:
- have clients talk stub RP + stub HNCP, be done with it
Oooh, if we want to require changes to clients, I have all kinds of ideas
how to solve this in other ways than you propose.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
It seems pretty clear that over time, the bulk of video will be unicast,
in order to meet on-demand needs. There will always be a few items that
folks really want to watch live, and thus where multicast may add value.
But making multicast the design driver for home networking
archtiecture
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Toerless Eckert wrote:
So foremost, it would be good to understand if there really is home L2
equipment that MUST see MLD to operate correctly. Otherwise i'd happily
ignore the problem and say
Am 19. Februar 2015 20:05:56 MEZ, schrieb Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com:
Hm, I will have to try it out. Is it in a distribution?
ohybridproxy in openwrt. It's mainly useful with hnetd (hncp) though.
Manual configuration without hncp is a bit awkward since you need to name each
link manually
Agree. I would not architect around multi-hop multicast, subnet OK,
targeted probably.
Not sure everyone has had the pleasure of running large IP multicast
infrastructures running video, it is a wonderful challenge.
It also has the side benefit of encouraging poorly designed applications.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Steven Barth cy...@openwrt.org wrote:
Am 19. Februar 2015 20:05:56 MEZ, schrieb Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com:
Hm, I will have to try it out. Is it in a distribution?
ohybridproxy in openwrt. It's mainly useful with hnetd (hncp) though.
Manual configuration
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 08:43:26AM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
We're talking about a protocol decision here. People seem to focus a lot
on the running code part here. ISIS is used for numerous things of apart
frmo the MPLS and Traffic engineering space, we also have IEEE 802.1aq
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Gert Doering wrote:
We're not talking about a routing protocol for every possible use case
here - we're talking about a fairly well defined environment (aka fairly
small number of devices, IPv4
On 19.02.2015 10:00, Dave Taht wrote:
hnetd exclusive of the library dependencies (which I could easily run
a sloccount for, also, if you care)
d@nuc-client:~/git/hnetd$ sloccount --personcost 11 generic src test openwrt
SLOCDirectorySLOC-by-Language (Sorted)
12936 src
On 19.2.2015, at 10.52, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
We're not talking about a routing protocol for every possible use case here
- we're talking about a fairly well defined environment (aka fairly small
number of devices, IPv4 and IPv6 only, and implementations constrained by
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:15:38AM +0200, Markus Stenberg wrote:
[ HNCP ]
Right. It is essentially bit more modern take on a link state
routing protocol. So if you bring it up, I bring up the another
argument - why not route using it? Cost of doing _that_ is ~100 LoC
(+ whatever fancy
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
I'd imagine it's easier to do AQM on routed ports instead of switched ports
as well, that's where I can imagine CeroWRT choosing this approach.
I don't
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
I'd imagine it's easier to do AQM on routed ports instead of switched ports
as
If people want to choose babel because it works well facing adverse radio
conditions in a mesh-networking environment (that I know nothing about),
I think this is misrepresenting the argument somewhat.
We want a routing protocol that works well in an unadministered network
that consists of a
I would note that RFC 7368 says that simple Layer 3 topologies
involving as few subnets as possible are preferred in home networks. I
presume this is reflective of WG agreement.
While it does go on to note that multiple subnets are sometimes needed,
mandating that each physical port on the
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
My employer has millions of subscribers using IPv4 multicast TV channels
currently.
How's that getting through the NAT?
IGMP proxy
On Feb 19, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
I'd imagine it's easier to do AQM on routed ports instead of switched ports
as well, that's where I can imagine CeroWRT choosing this approach.
I don't think it is easier to do AQM on routed ports. If you do the easy
On Feb 19, 2015, at 2:09 PM 2/19/15, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Ralph Droms wrote:
But I think one of the important points for homenet is that many people will
just buy internet devices, not routers and switches. I've been out of the
loop so I
I would note that RFC 7368 says that simple Layer 3 topologies involving as
few subnets as possible are preferred in home networks. I presume this is
reflective of WG agreement.
While it does go on to note that multiple subnets are sometimes needed,
mandating that each physical port on
protocol comparison document
I would note that RFC 7368 says that simple Layer 3 topologies
involving as few subnets as possible are preferred in home networks. I
presume this is reflective of WG agreement.
While it does go on to note that multiple subnets are sometimes needed,
mandating that each
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Ole Troan otr...@employees.org wrote:
there are very few shared media around anymore. I don't think I've ever been
connected to a 10base5.
why should the IP subnet model emulate a shared medium, when the physical
topology is a star.
wireless with security
On 19.2.2015, at 11.28, Steven Barth cy...@openwrt.org wrote:
On 19.02.2015 10:00, Dave Taht wrote:
hnetd exclusive of the library dependencies (which I could easily run
a sloccount for, also, if you care)
d@nuc-client:~/git/hnetd$ sloccount --personcost 11 generic src test
openwrt
On Feb 19, 2015, at 2:43 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
If people are making routing protocol decision based on the fact that they
think most of the homenet links are going to be current incarnation of
802.11, then we're lacking consensus on a lot wider range of requirements
On Feb 19, 2015, at 6:41 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
Basically, Dave Taht and Jim Gettys have been working a lot in these
marginal networks. They have a lot of experience. Personally, I don't see
their kind of networks as something Homenet needs to support. I can see us
On Feb 19, 2015, at 3:52 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
For instance the security work now being done on HNCP. Does ISIS already
offer the same functionality? I can't evaluate security very well, I don't
know how many active in this working group that can. I would rather use
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Because if we're trying to support marginal performance mesh networks that
might change all the time, lose packets, drop multicast packets randomly,
etc, then those requirements need to be brought to the discussion.
Basically, Dave Taht and Jim
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Gert Doering wrote:
We're not talking about a routing protocol for every possible use case
here - we're talking about a fairly well defined environment (aka
fairly small number of devices, IPv4 and IPv6 only, and implementations
constrained by lack of clue on the
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Pierre Pfister wrote:
- There is a delay between the assignment and the actual use of a
prefix. This is called ‘Apply Delay’ in the prefix assignment draft. I
don’t think routing based on assigned prefix TLVs is a good idea because
you would not try to handle assigned
Also, currently most routers consists of mostly L2 high speed forwarding,
with some L3 thrown in between two ports (the WAN port, and the 5th
internal port to the 5 port switch chip with 4 external ports). With
homenet, all this changes. Now all ports need to be L3.
I'm possibly missing
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Toerless Eckert wrote:
That's because there has been no requirement to do so, most of the time.
Basically a device has been sold with a certain amount of features, and
this featureset hasn't changed over time, thus there is no need to
future-proof. I see this changing.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 08:43:26AM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
* While ram and flash have grown to be essentially free I really dont
see home router and cpe makers rushing to embrace slower languages or
bigger flash and memory requirements anytime soon.
This worry has been raised by
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Is the load from routing protocols we're talking about likely to have
any noticeable effect on the the forwarding rate?
Here are the figures given by H. Gredler on p.266 of The Complete IS-IS
Routing Protocol for a Cisco GRP 1200:
Routers
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
