Re: [homenet] draft-baker-homenet-prefix-assignment

On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:44 AM 11/15/11, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Fred, The mic line was too long to bring this up: You suggest using RFC 3633. How about RFC 2894 (Router renumbering) too? What device controls the use of RFC 2894? RFC 3633 triggers assignment from the routers that

[homenet] Name resolution in the homenet architecture document

Here's my list of desired behaviors for name resolution, proposed for inclusion in the architecture document; comments and suggestions welcome: * Disconnected operation (fate sharing): name resolution for reachable devices continues if the local network is disconnected from the global Internet

Re: [homenet] Name resolution in the homenet architecture document

On Mar 9, 2012, at 2:58 PM 3/9/12, Ted Lemon wrote: On Mar 9, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk wrote: I've been vocal in my complaints about how broken the DNS Search Path mechanism is. In particular, I'm concerned about the possible security implications of using a

Re: [homenet] Name resolution in the homenet architecture document

for it, and if so, what do we recommend for routing? See draft-lynn-homenet-site-mdns-00. - Ralph On Mar 9, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: Here's my list of desired behaviors for name resolution, proposed for inclusion in the architecture document; comments and suggestions welcome

Re: [homenet] Name resolution in the homenet architecture document

Suppose that view is on a per-device basis rather than per server? With something like environment variables in front of classic DNS resolution in the host resolver... - Ralph On Mar 11, 2012, at 11:43 AM 3/11/12, Jim Gettys wrote: On 03/11/2012 11:25 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Mar 11, 2012,

Re: [homenet] Name resolution in the homenet architecture document

On Mar 13, 2012, at 12:16 PM 3/13/12, Ray Bellis wrote: On 11 Mar 2012, at 15:22, Fred Baker wrote: ICANN is now selling dotless names. A name without dots has a defined behavior in most DNS resolvers; they find a way to further qualify them. Do we want to humor ICANN, or solve this?

Re: [homenet] Name service design principles: a proposal

So, let's compare this with what I talked about during the Paris WG meeting: * Disconnected operation (fate sharing): name resolution for reachable devices continues if the local network is disconnected from the global Internet * Relative name resolution: some naming convention that allows name

Re: [homenet] Name service design principles: a proposal

On Jun 29, 2012, at 3:58 PM 6/29/12, james woodyatt wrote: On Jun 29, 2012, at 11:27 , Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: Maybe I can add some fuel to Olafur's fire. I'd like to say that the homenet name service MUST be DNS. Let's go further. Let's say that it must be DNS-Based

Re: [homenet] Name service design principles: a proposal

On Jun 29, 2012, at 4:07 PM 6/29/12, Kerry Lynn wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote: So, let's compare this with what I talked about during the Paris WG meeting: * Disconnected operation (fate sharing): name resolution for reachable devices

Re: [homenet] Name service design principles: a proposal

On Jun 29, 2012, at 5:09 PM 6/29/12, Joe Touch wrote: On 6/29/2012 1:09 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: On Jun 29, 2012, at 3:58 PM 6/29/12, james woodyatt wrote: On Jun 29, 2012, at 11:27 , Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: Maybe I can add some fuel to Olafur's fire. I'd like to say

[homenet] regarding recursive DHCPv6-PD

Clarifying my remarks at the mic... Using PD in a home network isn't hard. Use a single delegating router; most obvious choice is the device that received the prefix from the external source. Every other router acts as a requesting router, and asks for a single /64 for each of its interfaces

Re: [homenet] DHCP PD for homenets.

On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:46 AM 11/7/12, Ted Lemon wrote: I don't have a particular preference for DHCP-PD over OSPF in homenets, but I just wanted to quickly contradict what's been said by several people at the mic: that figuring out what prefix to delegate is hard. It's not hard,

Re: [homenet] DHCP-pd relay/proxy? function

How does this PD function compare with draft-baker-homenet-prefix-assignment ? It would be interesting to know the details and experience with the running code. - Ralph On Mar 4, 2013, at 1:27 AM, Shishio Tsuchiya shtsu...@cisco.com wrote: I found NTT/KDDI home gateway has this function.

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

Ted - you wrote something that surprised me (in line)... On Oct 15, 2014, at 11:34 AM 10/15/14, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote: I explained my reasoning. Multiple times. Here and on other lists. Again and again. When you

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

On Oct 16, 2014, at 10:18 AM 10/16/14, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote: Um, no? Why would it? Because that's an indication that there is new

Re: [homenet] [Anima] ANIMA scope + homenet interaction + charter v15

On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:26 AM 10/30/14, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:15 AM, Ole Troan o...@cisco.com wrote: the flow-through model as far as I can recall suffers from DHCP's general problem of dealing with multiple sources of information (think multihoming with

Re: [homenet] [Anima] ANIMA scope + homenet interaction + charter v15

On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: On Oct 31, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Well yes. That's exactly why in autonomic management of prefixes, we need peer to peer negotiation, as in I need 3 /64s that I don't have,

Re: [homenet] draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home-01

Brian - I missed the discussion in homenet, so this reference may have already been cited: RFC 6761 - Ralph On Nov 12, 2014, at 11:26 AM 11/12/14, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: What's the mechanism for formal consultation with the DNS TLD community on this? Just

Re: [homenet] draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home-01

On Nov 12, 2014, at 1:03 PM 11/12/14, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:31:56AM -1000, Ralph Droms wrote: Brian - I missed the discussion in homenet, so this reference may have already been cited: RFC 6761 That's the way we register the special

Re: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document

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

Re: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document

On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:45 PM 2/19/15, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote: If I can extrapolate and oversimplify a bit, now we've gotten to a fundamental problem: how does a random collection of devices, links and ports

Re: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document

On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:18 PM 2/19/15, Ole Troan otr...@employees.org wrote: It means that every single device on a wired network is on a different subnet. Perhaps it doesn't cause any extreme harm, but it certainly makes managing and debugging the network harder, and it means that you

Re: [homenet] A poll

0) Have you managed to get ipv6 working at all? If so, how? What sort of problems did you encounter? I originally had IPv6 service through a tunnel to SixXS, which was OK once I got the details sorted. I'm using a Linksy E4200 with development software from a project at Cisco that includes

Re: [homenet] WG Actions

Here are my last call comments on draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment: implementing reliable broadcast seems like an imprecise specification of Flooding Mechanism. Exactly what characteristics are desired for the Flooding Mechanism: reliable delivery of the state of published Assigned Prefixes

Re: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document

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] WG Secretary - request for volunteers

On Mar 26, 2015, at 6:14 PM 3/26/15, Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk wrote: It has been strongly recommended to the Chairs that we appoint a WG Secretary to assist us in the administration of the Working Group. Details on the role and responsibilities of a WG Secretary can be

Re: [homenet] Selecting a routing protocol for HOMENET

On Apr 7, 2015, at 6:47 AM 4/7/15, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote: The DT will be chartered as below. I find the lack of the words working code, implementation experience or experimental data somewhat disquieting. I think the umbrella direction for requirements

Re: [homenet] Despair

Dave - I'm responding to your e-mail but my post is aimed at the homenet WG as a whole, because your e-mail gives me an opportunity to pull on a couple of threads from my perspective as a DT member. You suggested installing the software. OK, I could install it on my home network, but I would

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788 and the IANA registry conflict

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:35 PM 6/9/16, Markus Stenberg > wrote: > > On 9.6.2016, at 19.32, Ray Bellis wrote: >> On 09/06/2016 16:17, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >>> I've just fixed shncpd so that it interoperates with hnetd again (by >>> following the

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788 and the IANA registry conflict

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:45 PM 6/9/16, Juliusz Chroboczek > wrote: > >> The specification (AFAIK) does not really require all implementations to >> agree on the same network-wide default (as it is not omitted from DDZ >> TLVs, the sub-zones are fully qualified),

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788 and the IANA registry conflict

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 3:09 PM 6/9/16, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > > On 09/06/2016 18:35, Markus Stenberg wrote: > >> Is that RFC6something process for getting gTLDs still blocked by >> ICANN or whoever who is simultaneously celebrating their 1000th $$$ >> gTLD? > > It's RFC

Re: [homenet] alternatives to .home

> On Jun 20, 2016, at 10:23 AM 6/20/16, Michael Richardson > wrote: > > Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: - how does software running on my laptop, which just connected to an unknown network, find out what is the local translation of

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis

> On Jun 16, 2016, at 1:26 PM 6/16/16, Ray Bellis wrote: > > As was alluded to in my email of 9th June, we have been asked to replace > RFC 7788 (HNCP) with an RFC 7788-bis as soon as possible to incorporate > the errata raised by the DNSOP chair regarding the unintended apparent

Re: [homenet] dot-homenet [was: What I really meant by option 5]

> On Jul 23, 2016, at 5:17 PM 7/23/16, Juliusz Chroboczek > wrote: > >> But I think we all accept that there's going to have to be a special-use >> top-level name allocated. That name is either going to be '.home' or >> '.homenet' as far as I can tell. > > Ted,

Re: [homenet] What I really meant by option 5

> On Jul 18, 2016, at 3:44 PM 7/18/16, Ted Lemon wrote: > > The document as written causes some harm, but less harm than updating it. > The text in the document as written as to how domain names are resolved is > not very good, and really really needs to be clarified with

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

> 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 suspect, part of the issue: it seems that we have >>

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis-00.txt

I took a quick look at draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis-00, including a diff; seems the only change is to solve the .home problem. I don't think I quite understand the new text and here's a suggested clarification: OLD: A default value for this TLV MUST be set, although the default value of

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis-00.txt

> On Jul 8, 2016, at 12:30 PM 7/8/16, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: > > > > On 08/07/2016 17:25, Ralph Droms wrote: >> I took a quick look at draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis-00, including a >> diff; seems the only change is to solve the .home problem. I

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis-00.txt

On Jul 8, 2016, at 12:30 PM 7/8/16, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote:On 08/07/2016 17:25, Ralph Droms wrote:I took a quick look at draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis-00, including adiff; seems the only change is to solve the .home problem.  I don'tthink I quite understand the new text and

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis-00.txt

> On Jul 8, 2016, at 12:30 PM 7/8/16, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: > > > > On 08/07/2016 17:25, Ralph Droms wrote: >> I took a quick look at draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-bis-00, including a >> diff; seems the only change is to solve the .home problem. I

Re: [homenet] Thinking about the implementer - my comments at mic about .home and RFC 7788

> On Jul 21, 2016, at 4:45 PM 7/21/16, Ted Lemon wrote: > > The problem with option 1 is that it amounts to the IESG making a change to a > document that the authors don't want made and that doesn't have working group > consensus, or else you open up the document. I think

Re: [homenet] Last call updates to draft-ietf-homenet-dothome and draft-ietf-homenet-redact

emaining small issue (see inline). > > Ralph Droms writes regarding draft-ietf-homenet-dothome: >> I suggest that the paragraph in the Introduction that motivates the change >> from .home to .homenet be augmented or replaced with the reasons Ray listed >> in earlier e-mai

Re: [homenet] Last call updates to draft-ietf-homenet-dothome and draft-ietf-homenet-redact

> On Jan 30, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > On Jan 30, 2017 12:44 PM, "Ralph Droms" <rdroms.i...@gmail.com > <mailto:rdroms.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Name resolution APIs MUST send queries for such name to a recursive D

Re: [homenet] Last call updates to draft-ietf-homenet-dothome and draft-ietf-homenet-redact

> On Jan 30, 2017, at 3:04 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > On Jan 30, 2017, at 1:26 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com > <mailto:rdroms.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Name resolution APIs and libraries MUST NOT recognize names that end in

Re: [homenet] WGLC on "redact" and "homenet-dot"

(Updated comments on draft-ietf-homenet-dot originally posted prior to the WG last call) I suggest that the paragraph in the Introduction that motivates the change from .home to .homenet be augmented or replaced with the reasons Ray listed in earlier e-mail: 1. we cannot be sure that using

Re: [homenet] Update on RFC 7788 and .home

I’ve read draft-ietf-homenet-dot-00. If I’ve got it right, the concept and text in draft-ietf-homenet-dot-00 are modeled after the behavior specified in RFC 6303 and the text in RFC 6761that specifies the SUDN registry entries for the SUDNs defined in RFC 6303. Seems like a good starting

Re: [homenet] Update on RFC 7788 and .home

> On Nov 15, 2016, at 11:08 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > Great comments, Ralph—thanks! You’re welcome. I noticed a typo in my e-mail - my last comment applies to question 6. - Ralph > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.

Re: [homenet] WGLC on "redact" and "homenet-dot"

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Dec 12, 2016, at 4:56 PM, james woodyatt wrote: >> I would strongly prefer that we avoid the risks above by using a >> special-purpose subdomain of a gTLD owned by IETF. I don’t really care which >>

Re: [homenet] WGLC on "redact" and "homenet-dot"

s that it didn't actually click for me that we had a > serious problem until several of us were chatting on the way out of the room, > after the working group had already decided to proceed. > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk > <mailto:r...@bellis.me.

Re: [homenet] [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

I asked this question on the dnsop WG mailing list; asking again here: > On Mar 21, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ted - has the operation of .homenet, as described in > draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03, been demonstrated? > > - Ral

Re: [homenet] [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 24, 2017, at 3:04 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > > Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Ted - has the operation of .homenet, as described in >>> draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03, been demonstrated? > >>

Re: [homenet] review of draft-ietf-homenet-redact and draft-ietf-homenet-dot

> On Mar 12, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 01:17:28PM +0100, Jari Arkko wrote: > > [...] >> Also, the insecure delegation in the root zone puts us into a >> place where we have not been before, process-wise, because >>

[homenet] "mDNS proxy" in RFC 7788

While I was reviewing RFC 7788 because of the .home issue, I ran some other text that I think needs to be clarified. Section 7.4 refers to a "Multicast DNS Proxy", with a citation of RFC 6762. The problem here is that RFC 6762 does not provide a definition of "Multicast DNS Proxy Servers"