On 10/7/11 12:55 , Curtis Villamizar wrote: > In message <[email protected]> > Joel jaeggli writes: > >> On 10/4/11 16:17 , james woodyatt wrote: >>> On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:00 PM, Thomas Herbst wrote: >>>> >>>> There will be wide area network providers who interwork with the >>>> home network but do not provide global connectivity. Two mentioned >>>> so far are utility networks and 3g providers. One of the outputs >>>> of the wg should be to define how they should be configured to >>>> perform their role without messing up Internet communication. >>> >>> Those utility networks have a fundamental problem that I contend is >>> beyond the scope and charter of HOMENET. >> >> every-time I connect my split-tunneled vpn to my home network, I am >> attaching a non-dfz-connected inter-network behind my home network, I >> don't think of this as rare or particularly exceptional problem (it's >> not confined to utility networks). it does have the potential for >> address collisions (as built currently)in ipv4 due to the extensive if >> not quite complete use of rfc-1918 used within the scope of that private >> internetwork. > > > Joel, > > Being new to this WG I may have it wrong, but a point of this WG may > be to change the use of RFC1918 space to IPv6 space.
I've got a little experience numbering networks... My observation which apparently you missed was in response to James Woodyatt's point about whether the interconnection of private inter-networks (e.g. those without internet routes for example a utility such as an elecritc provider) was is scope for homenet. > For example, not > only your computers, but your home thermostats, your electic meter, > your entertainment systems, SIP phones, etc can each have global IPv6 > addresses. Beats "go check the thermostat at 10.0.0.1" from your > mobile phone. Authentication will be an issue for product (but > from the charter, not in scope for the WG). > > With an IPv6 only home network you don't need to use rfc1918 number > space. You can put your /64 behind a firewall if you like. You can > use RFC3142 as one means to reach the IPv4 world at least for anything > based on TCP (SMTP, HTTP, etc). Or you can use application gateways > (what I use). The benefit over using net 10/8 or other rfc1918 space > is that if your hosts at different sites use IPv6 and if your laptop > in a IPv4 only site can at least get a 6to4 tunnel, you can use a > globally routable IPv6 number space. > > Try using IPv6 instead of rfc1918. (for example, see mail headers). > > If the provider side of the WAN connection just hands the home router > an IPv6 prefix, then some form of autoconfiguration is possible. If > not, IPv4 rfc1918 autoconfiguration can be used with NAT unless a > tunnel is configured. It wouldn't hurt to do both IPv4 rfc1918 > autoconfiguration with NAT and IPv6 autoconfiguration with a native > prefix or with a configured tunnel (or with 6to4 enabled). > > Curtis > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
