Thanks very much for producing this draft.
I realise the WG is in a hurry, but I think there's some fundamental
issues to solve here on sharpening up requirements if the architecture
is going to last more than a couple of years. I really miss a discussion
on requirements.
I'm probably going to push forward some things you'll say are not
typical user requirements and will therefore push back. That's healthy,
and we should be very clear about the problem homenet is trying to
solve, and what is, and what is not in scope.
If I think of my own house network, I don't think it fits in any of the
scenarios in the document today in terms of complexity. That's a bit
scary. I have IPv4 from one provider, IPv6 from another, DMZ's for
inbound services, multiple firewalls, wireless extenders...... being
honest, would your home network fit in with any of the architecture
pictures? Or is this wishful thinking of what you think your parents /
friends could realistically manage?
Some major trends in home networking have been hidden from view of the
network providers and network equipment prociders, (and perhaps the IETF
too) by large scale use of NAT. If you want to get rid of NAT you're
going to have to address the following IMVHO. The focus has been largely
on the number of devices (address depletion), but the real challenge is
likely to be complexity of requirements (IP becomes ubiquitous).
1) I contend that multi-homing is probably going to become the "norm" in
Europe by 2022, due to The European Electricity and Gas Directive. That
corresponds at least to picture 4, if not more.
But that picture seems to presume a single isolation LAN to connect two
ISP providers of equal worth. I think that reachability, and cost, and
the services provided by the various networks, may be radically
different. One may be your entertainment ISP. Another your telephony
ISP. Another your electricity provider ISP. Your car may connect to the
electricity network ISP to register charging. Your phone may connect to
4G whilst not at home and then to WiFi whilst you are at home, and to
hard wired cable when it is connected to its charger. Or perhaps to
homenet for controlling the lights and the 4G for voice calls....
We should be clear about what (if any) interaction, provider preference
/ selection, and fall back scenarios will be implemented as part of the
homenet providing an ISP selection function; or whether the service
providers should be seen as providing 3 or more logically separate home
networks, and where the end device itself has to chose the outbound path
independently of the ISP's and homenet(s) routing.
2) Wireless is exploding. I contend that the single layer LAN in the
picture is a non-starter. There is almost certainly going to be at least
two short range radio system technologies in home networks: one wifi and
one LoWPAN type network for device control. There may be more
technologies given the rate electronics is moving at the moment e.g.
NFC, networking via LED lighting. So there may also be a requirement for
interconnection of multiple ultra-short range networks via a house
backbone: e.g. lights on top floor pool to form a mesh network, and
lights in the basement form a mesh network, but the reinforced concrete
floor partitions the two wireless meshes, so you need a routed
connection between them. The various radio and lightwave standards are
unlikely to be L2 bridgeable IMHO. That may add another layer of routing
to your picture.
3) Virtual machines are exploding. I run 4 VM's on my workstation. With
the various upcoming application stores and multiple application
developers running on one system, I could easily imagine that each
application eventually runs in its own mini-VM, so each IPv6 host
becomes the equivalent of an old style mainframe with multiple prefixes
and intra-machine routing. That may add another layer of routing to your
picture. There may also be virtual firewalls between those VM's, which
adds another layer.
4) IPv4 NAT allows limitless layers of stacking of networks (for
outbound connectivity at least) I think stackable devices are going to
be important. Why buy a whole new device to support a new wireless
technology or WAN technology, rather than just an adapter?
I submit that a more suitable generic architecture picture for homenet
would therefore be multiple trees of indeterminate depth of stacked
devices, with the ISP router forming the root of each tree network and
IPvs end nodes the leaves. This would obviously have major consequences
for the requirements of prefix delegation, routing protocol selection
etc. You can also argue whether these trees should interact in any
intelligent way, or whether the end nodes should be individually
multi-homed to several independent trees and thus have to provide any
intelligence for ISP selection themselves.
Hope this gets the ball rolling, resulting in an architecture with an
extended lifespan.
regards,
RayH
Subject:
[homenet] draft-chown-homenet-arch-00.txt
From:
Tim Chown <[email protected]>
Date:
Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:27:22 +0100
To:
[email protected]
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Precedence:
list
MIME-Version:
1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
References:
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
In-Reply-To:
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<EMEW3|507144591d242f9fb36239f554f547a1n8KDRS03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|[email protected]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message:
1
Hi,
I have been working with Jari, Jason and Ole to produce a new version of the
homenet architecture draft. Mark, who produced the first version with Jari, is
now of course WG chair and has stepped down as editor of the text.
The structure of the draft remains similar. We have expanded section 2 on IPv6
implications for home networking, added a couple of extra models in section 3,
expanded the principle section and also added a considerations section where we
discuss certain topics that may (or may not) be deemed in scope for the text.
Feedback is of course welcome, indeed required!
I don't know whether Mark and Ray will call for WG adoption at this stage. The
charter targets a WG draft by the end of September, but this is also a document
that I hope will have some additional revisions from your feedback before the
interim meeting.
There are some acknowledgements to be added; these will be included in the next
version.
Tim
On 21 Sep 2011, at 12:37,[email protected] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
>
> Title : Home Networking Architecture for IPv6
> Author(s) : Jari Arkko
> Tim Chown
> Jason Weil
> Ole Troan
> Filename : draft-chown-homenet-arch-00.txt
> Pages : 20
> Date : 2011-09-21
>
> This text describes the evolving networking technology within small
> "residential home" networks. The goal of this memo is to
define the
> architecture for IPv6-based home networking. The text highlights the
> impact of IPv6 on home networking, and illustrates some topology
> scenarios. The architecture shows how standard IPv6 mechanisms and
> addressing can be employed in home networking, lists a number of
> principles that should apply, and outlines the need for specific
> protocol extensions for certain additional functionality.
>
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chown-homenet-arch-00.txt
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
