From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5088621F142 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id hq4so69wib.10 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:20:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Y6ffJ4GJM8ld3ITbqQXkPpW/wuj0oi8fRjOVUg2ALdk=; b=TUJChWfdzgebf/wZ5XfJCygmQPlkHqslPdSJuyxARE+iMjJqwH9UvbejjA8dDafJeY 8S5Iw7yFZ0ZOvibx+xLv8JsdAP+Z0wvwht5VFd9sLE7jfYZiEFT/3SYjuS8CRtDOg2VU vdGlww+MDUo7rM4LmVarkImLJn9xKulp9HEHPQnd5uww1kmwKkMbt0yflURA8PpF2DFp L0jmeTTW9jP25F6I0J3CI4KlE9xoxdA3qLqTjmvZXsk5uMMayP1RFcMVrEkS4ts93uEJ TiqYVXJ2TMxk0jwIGJn6h0vYBBGV15khBTYy/ZswlOl4IZD3BLz/LINVhLm1RlV0StmO aAoA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.194.26 with SMTP id l26mr1287781wen.17.1349994001391; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:20:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.129.135 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:20:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51059699-AA09-4C04-A7CB-2DCACA5587BA@cisco.com> References: <5C56BF52-CB1B-44DE-B2A4-8EB3517B2C37@gmail.com> <51059699-AA09-4C04-A7CB-2DCACA5587BA@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:20:01 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: [homenet] Border Router Discovery Protocol X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:20:05 -0000 some activity on a needed standardization front... I would like to come up with ways, with ipv4, that will prevent double-or-worse nat from happening when multiple routers are plugged into together. With ipv6, to come up with good ways of distributing uniquely delegated ipv6 subnets out of an ISP's assigned prefixes. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ole Tr=F8an Date: Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:50 AM Subject: Re: [homenet] Border Router Discovery Protocol To: Tim Chown Cc: "homenet@ietf.org Group" >> PS: I'd also be quite happy to see BRDP go out as an >> Experimental status RFC initially, whether through >> the IETF track, IRTF Routing RG, or the ISE-track. >> BRDP seems very useful and useful protocols tend >> to self-deploy into environments where they are useful. > > We also have Eric Kline's draft in similar space: draft-kline-default-per= imeter-00. > > Both can hopefully contribute to the solution for this problem space in h= omenet. I have read the BRDP framework document, but I failed to understand how BRDP solves the problem of how a border is discovered. it explains well how to act when a border has been established, but I don't understand how BRDP helps getting to that point. pointers? cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet --=20 Dave T=E4ht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.= html