Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

>> If the fast connection's DNS server replies after a delay or not at all, >> and the slow connection's DNS server replies in a timely manner, using >> a smart resolver across all the available DNS servers will improve latenc > Yes, but if your fast connection is lossy, it's not fast. Lossy

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

El 18 ag 2017, a les 5:40, Juliusz Chroboczek va escriure: > If the fast connection's DNS server replies after a delay or not at all, > and the slow connection's DNS server replies in a timely manner, using > a smart resolver across all the available DNS servers will improve latenc

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> I don't think anything we are talking about here would actually help > with that. If the fast connection's DNS server replies after a delay or not at all, and the slow connection's DNS server replies in a timely manner, using a smart resolver across all the available DNS servers will improve

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

El 17 ag 2017, a les 16:10, Gert Doering va escriure: > 1990s never had uplinks that fast *and* unreliable at the same time > as many of today's consumer ISPs offer. That was my point: you tunnel to the 1990's to get the leased line (a term that I think most people would just

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Hi, On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:49:54PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > It's never for that purpose. It's to combine to normal connections so as to > increase reliability. The scenario you just described would require a > wormhole with one end in the 1990s. 1990s never had uplinks that fast *and*

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > That's exactly the kind of situation that we'd like Homenet to work well > in. Connection A is a 1.5Mbit/s leased line, it's rock solid, and has > rock solid infrastructure behind it. Connection B is consumer FTTH at > 1Gbit/s, it's

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

It's never for that purpose. It's to combine to normal connections so as to increase reliability. The scenario you just described would require a wormhole with one end in the 1990s. On Aug 16, 2017 5:25 PM, "Juliusz Chroboczek" wrote: > > I think this is a real edge case. You have

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> I think this is a real edge case. You have two connections, the DNS server on > one of them is broken, the DNS server on the other is not, but the second > connection performs so much worse than the first That's exactly the kind of situation that we'd like Homenet to work well in. Connection A

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: > El 16 ag 2017, a les 9:40, Ted Lemon va escriure: >> Ah, if this is your concern, I think that's answered by the whitelisting >> stuff I was talking about earlier. But in this case you really do need to >> have separate caches per PvD,

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: > El 16 ag 2017, a les 9:26, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va escriure: >> Ted Lemon > writes: >> >>> El 15 ag 2017, a les 19:32, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va >>> escriure: > In both of these

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

El 16 ag 2017, a les 9:40, Ted Lemon va escriure: > Ah, if this is your concern, I think that's answered by the whitelisting > stuff I was talking about earlier. But in this case you really do need to > have separate caches per PvD, and the MPvD-aware clients on the net need

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

El 16 ag 2017, a les 9:33, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va escriure: > Ah, I wasn't trying to imply that ISPs deliberately design sub-par > services just to annoy their customers; sorry if it came across that > way. My "broken by design" comment was referring specifically to > DNS-based

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

El 16 ag 2017, a les 9:26, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va escriure: > Ted Lemon > writes: > >> El 15 ag 2017, a les 19:32, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va >> escriure: In both of these cases, you are better off doing what we

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ralf Weber writes: > Moin! > > On 15 Aug 2017, at 21:38, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> Ted Lemon writes: >>> I think we are wandering off into nonsense territory here. Have you >>> observed this sort of problem in the field? If so, can you describe >>>

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: > El 15 ag 2017, a les 19:32, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va escriure: >>> In both of these cases, you are better off doing what we discussed >>> earlier and setting up your own DNS cache, possibly with a whitelist >>> for domains you want to send to

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Moin! On 15 Aug 2017, at 21:38, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Ted Lemon writes: >> I think we are wandering off into nonsense territory here. Have you >> observed this sort of problem in the field? If so, can you describe >> what happened? If not, why would we optimize

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

El 15 ag 2017, a les 19:32, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va escriure: >> In both of these cases, you are better off doing what we discussed >> earlier and setting up your own DNS cache, possibly with a whitelist >> for domains you want to send to the ISP forwarder. > > Sure, and that's

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: > El 15 ag 2017, a les 15:38, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va escriure: >>> I think we are wandering off into nonsense territory here. Have you >>> observed this sort of problem in the field? If so, can you describe >>> what happened? If not,

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

El 15 ag 2017, a les 15:38, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va escriure: >> I think we are wandering off into nonsense territory here. Have you >> observed this sort of problem in the field? If so, can you describe >> what happened? If not, why would we optimize for it? > > If you

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: >> Depending on the type of performance problem. If the performance problem >> is general, yes. If it is specific to DNS, there's no reason to not use >> the connection for other things; and the "send queries to all upstreams" >> solution will automatically

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

El 15 ag 2017, a les 7:37, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va escriure: > Erm, except when the suboptimal path does *not* have substantially worse > performance for the duration of the session? CDNs are used for other > things than Netflix... Simple answer: don't wait five seconds. > What

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: > El 13 ag 2017, a les 14:25, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va escriure: >>> El 13 ag 2017, a les 11:49, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen >> > va escriure: In any case, the failure mode of getting a it wrong is a

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

El 14 ag 2017, a les 16:21, Juliusz Chroboczek va escriure: > Now, the interaction between source-specific routing, BGP anycast, and > multipath at the higher layers, that's an interesting topic to argue about. I actually disagree, but it's beside the point, because this is a

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

El 13 ag 2017, a les 14:25, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va escriure: >> El 13 ag 2017, a les 11:49, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > > va escriure: >>> In any case, the failure mode of getting a it wrong is a sub-optimal >>> path being chosen; but if ISP A's

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> But only the client can make that coupling (from DNS reply to connection > attempt). So if we're just filtering the result set based on the address > the client uses (which is how I interpret what you put in the draft), > we're degrading the experience for any client that doesn't know how to >

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> Why do you think CDNs exist? What would happen if every home network suddenly > stopped using the technology that makes CDNs work? I thought I'd just mention that split-horizon DNS is just one possible technique. BGP anycast is another one. (AFAIK, Akamai use split-horizon DNS while

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: > El 13 ag 2017, a les 11:49, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va escriure: >> In any case, the failure mode of getting a it wrong is a sub-optimal >> path being chosen; but if ISP A's DNS server takes five seconds to >> respond, we'd get a better result

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

El 13 ag 2017, a les 11:49, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va escriure: > In any case, the failure mode of getting a it wrong is a sub-optimal > path being chosen; but if ISP A's DNS server takes five seconds to > respond, we'd get a better result from just using the timely answer from >

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: >> Perhaps it would help if you could explain (a) the details of "the CDN >> problem" (what mechanism is used to determine answers for a given >> prefix, and what is the failure mode if the wrong address is used?), and >> (b) how the client is supposed to

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

El 13 ag 2017, a les 9:32, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen va escriure: > Sure. I'm just not sure I agree that MPvD shouldn't also be on the "nice > to have" list, rather than the "absolutely required" list. Why do you think CDNs exist? What would happen if every home network suddenly

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> The point is that what I have specified in the architecture document is > what is minimally required to allow a homenet to function given ordinary > ISPs and ordinary users. I think trying to do some of the things on the > above laundry list would be very interesting work; trying to get it to

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Hm. What I think the ideal resolver to have on a homenet is as follows: (1) It can be configured to scatter queries randomly to a large number of resolvers all over the internet. (2) It can be configured to send certain queries to forwarders provided by one or more local ISPs (3) It can be

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: > What I find completely perplexing about this conversation is that you, > Markus and Toke, all of whom I know to be smart people, think this is > hard. What is hard about it? I think the reason you think it's > hard is simply that you don't know how to do

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

El 12 ag 2017, a les 13:45, Michael Richardson va escriure: > I agree. It seems like it ought to be a routing protocol at the edge, that > the destinations involved should be advertised with longer prefixes, and with > some kind of metric that implies the cost. The edge

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon wrote: > On Aug 11, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: mcr> The example that, in contrast to all other content, is when content mcr> is zero-rated via 3G but not via WIFI. (generalized to any two mcr> uplinks) I

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> On 11 Aug 2017, at 17:53, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Ted Lemon wrote: >> Source-specific routing, however, is an incomplete solution. Having >> chosen the correct route based on the source address, we still have the >> problem that one provider

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On Aug 11, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > The example that, in contrast to all other content, is when content is > zero-rated via 3G but not via WIFI. (generalized to any two uplinks) > I don't know the source address selection or source routing can deal

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon wrote: > Source-specific routing, however, is an incomplete solution. Having > chosen the correct route based on the source address, we still have the > problem that one provider connection may be better than another for > connecting to a particular

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On Aug 11, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> This is a refrain I've heard from you, Juliusz and Markus, which I actually >> find a bit disturbing: the desire not to really solve the problem because >> it's >> not trivially easy. > > If I were in a bad mood, I'd say

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On Aug 11, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Can we please agree that this document has no business mandating > round-robining? The point of the text on round-robining is to avoid a situation where one provider's answers wind up being preferred over another provider's

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On Aug 11, 2017, at 9:09 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Because I'm not convinced the added implementation complexity is worth > it; so yeah, the last one I guess... This is a refrain I've heard from you, Juliusz and Markus, which I actually find a bit disturbing: the desire

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> From: Ted Lemon > Barbara, I seem to recall that you were enthusiastic about the work when it > was discussed in the meeting.   You're allowed to be one of the people who's > in favor of it, despite being chair.   Indeed, as > chair, you can just adopt > it by fiat if you want.   I actually

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

>>> DNS resolvers use round-robining. That's how the protocol works. >> Does that mean that dnsmasq breaks the protocol? >> >> http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=blob;f=src/forward.c;h=f22556a595673c7478706f17a22af2095e1068f8;hb=HEAD#l366 > What dnsmasq seems to be

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: > Why do you want it to be optional? What problem are you trying to solve? > Do you not know how to do it? Do you think it's resource intensive? Do you > think it reduces reliability more than not doing it? Because I'm not convinced the added implementation

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Why do you want it to be optional? What problem are you trying to solve? Do you not know how to do it? Do you think it's resource intensive? Do you think it reduces reliability more than not doing it? On Aug 11, 2017 8:55 AM, "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" wrote: > Ted Lemon

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: > How does the client know in which PvD a response is intended to exist. Well, in some cases normal source address selection rules are going to do the trick (i.e., the client picks the source address closest to the destination). In others it won't, and the

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

What dnsmasq seems to be doing is trying all servers at once. That would work too, if the pattern described in the document is followed. On Aug 11, 2017 8:41 AM, "Juliusz Chroboczek" wrote: > > - round-robin = bad (think why happy eyeballs came up for example of > why) > > >

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >> 1a. Router A exports over HNCP that it supports MPvD. Router B forwards >> all queries to router A, using a source address in the same prefix >> as the original request was received from. > >> 1b. Router A exports over HNCP that it supports

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

How does the client know in which moved a response is intended to exist. Also, what problem are you trying to solve here? What you described sounds like it's just an attempt at implementing mpvd on a homenet without requiring that all routers behave the same. On Aug 11, 2017 6:15 AM, "Toke

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On 11/08/2017 13:40, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> DNS resolvers use round-robining. That's how the protocol works. > > Does that mean that dnsmasq breaks the protocol? AFAICR, that's one of those niggly parts of the DNS protocol that is not strictly specified. Ray

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> - round-robin = bad (think why happy eyeballs came up for example of why) > DNS resolvers use round-robining. That's how the protocol works. Does that mean that dnsmasq breaks the protocol?

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> 1a. Router A exports over HNCP that it supports MPvD. Router B forwards > all queries to router A, using a source address in the same prefix > as the original request was received from. > 1b. Router A exports over HNCP that it supports MPvD. Router B uses > router A's address (which

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On 11/08/2017 12:59, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > In simple terms, I said "Why don't we try implementing bits of this > document before we adopt". I never said "We need seven interoperable > independent implementations before adoption". Juliusz, IMNSHO, that's still too high a bar. kind

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

> Juliusz expressed opposition to adoption, but Ray and Michael said the > reasoning for objection was flawed (that Juliusz was setting the bar too > high and the procedural objections were not valid in the context of IETF > procedures). I probably expressed myself badly -- my objections were

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: > On Aug 10, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> Now, assuming that I am wrong and this is actually a serious issue that >> we need to solve (of which I am not opposed to being convinced), I think >> it would be feasible to come

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On Aug 10, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Now, assuming that I am wrong and this is actually a serious issue that > we need to solve (of which I am not opposed to being convinced), I think > it would be feasible to come up with a solution where we could at least >

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon writes: > On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> with the possible exception of the >> requirement for supporting multiple provisioning domains > > How would you solve the problem of dual-homing without the multiple > provisioning

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On 10 Aug 2017, at 23.33, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > > With one day left in CFA for draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming, here is my > summary of what I think I've read. > > Exactly 3 people have expressed support for adoption (Daniel [author], > Michael R, James). Hmm. That's not

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > with the possible exception of the > requirement for supporting multiple provisioning domains How would you solve the problem of dual-homing without the multiple provisioning domain support described in the document?

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Andrew Sullivan writes: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 08:33:11PM +, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: >> Does anyone else have an opinion? Does anyone who has expressed an opinion >> want to express a new and different opinion? >> Barbara > > I haven't weighed in because I can't

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Barbara, I seem to recall that you were enthusiastic about the work when it was discussed in the meeting. You're allowed to be one of the people who's in favor of it, despite being chair. Indeed, as chair, you can just adopt it by fiat if you want. I actually agree with Ray and Michael that

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 08:33:11PM +, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > Does anyone else have an opinion? Does anyone who has expressed an opinion > want to express a new and different opinion? > Barbara I haven't weighed in because I can't make up my mind. On the one hand, I think this is a

[homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

With one day left in CFA for draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming, here is my summary of what I think I've read. Exactly 3 people have expressed support for adoption (Daniel [author], Michael R, James). Hmm. That's not a lot. Juliusz expressed opposition to adoption, but Ray and Michael said the