>>>>> "james" == james woodyatt <[email protected]> writes:
>> 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.
james> Those utility networks have a fundamental problem that I
james> contend is beyond the scope and charter of HOMENET.
james> Utility networks of that sort do not provide transit to the
james> Internet default-free zone. They must therefore obtain their
james> routes to residential networks bilaterally. This implies
james> that these utility networks could be-- and would do well to
james> be-- numbered with ULA prefixes, and that they should use of
If you said, "ULA-Central" I would agree.
I do not want to debug random packets on someone's network without
whois.
>> A wg Chair from the Internet area did accuse me of "breaking the
>> Internet model" because the utility networks my company builds do
>> not provide global connectivity to users with our 100kb to the
>> node.
james> That's really not the problem, if you want my humble opinion.
james> The problem, I would say, is that these utility networks
james> insist on extending their private routing domains into our
james> home networks where they don't belong and they aren't
james> welcome.
It does break the *I*nternet model: the one where the ISPs control
everything like the telcos did before, and I need to beg to be allowed
to receive SYN packets. Why do I care if it breaks the business plans
of some ISPs?
But the IETF needs to spend more time worrying about the *Internet
Protocols* rather than just the *I*nternet.
>> [...] 6. The lookup of foo.ispA.net works over either DNS and
>> returns the same IP address, but the application-layer content is
>> completely different (e.g., a "subscriber" view when connecting
>> over the ISP-A connection).
james> This is the basic problem faced by any multi-homed host,
james> e.g. a personal computer with a 3G interface and a Wi-fi
james> interface that are simultaneously active, along with a
james> split-tunnel VPN interface [or three] running on one or both
james> interfaces.
james> It is a problem for host operating systems and applications
james> developers. I suggest HOMENET should steer well clear of it,
james> and just about every related problem that is too easily
james> conflated with it.
What is the set of problems left for homenet then?
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
then sign the petition.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
