In message <[email protected]> Michael Richardson writes: > > >>>>> "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.
I completely agree with the WG chair on this one. If the utility network wants to share a common homenet infrastructure but remain disjoint from the Internet, then it must do so in a way that doesn't break the other uses of the homenet. One way may be to identify (somehow) those hosts that are using the homenet for the purpose of connecting to the utility network, such as the home heating system, the water header, etc and only offer addressing and routing to that subset of equipment. Another even simpler solution is to have the utility gateway stop serving as an ND or DHCP server completely if it detects connectivity to the Internet and just use that connectivity. Surely the utility can afford an Internet connection. Use the Internet if it is there, otherwise use the utility network. OTOH - If the reason for avoiding the Internet is because an industry came up with a meter protocol with no security assuming it was only going to be used on a walled off private network, then that is not a homenet WG issue either. > >> [...] 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? Certainly not solving the broken utility network issues. Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
