I also think ISP networks and enterprise networks are different from home
networks. Although many requirements may looks similar, particularly
considering the auto operation target, there are many preconditions are
different. It could result on different solution though some components may be
reusable among these networks.
For ANIMA, we should surely study what homenet is working on and identify the
differentia. Only after then, we can produce necessary solution with confusing
the world.
Best regards,
Sheng
________________________________________
From: homenet [homenet-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Toerless Eckert
[eck...@cisco.com]
Sent: 02 October 2014 22:41
To: Leddy, John
Cc: Michael Behringer (mbehring); The IESG; homenet@ietf.org; Stephen Farrell;
an...@ietf.org; Ted Lemon
Subject: Re: [homenet] [Anima] Ted Lemon's Block on charter-ietf-anima-00-09:
(with BLOCK)
Fully agreed. But does this imply that we will make most progress by
blocking out a working group that is actively chartered to look at
the problems in the market segments Homenet is not addressing ?
If the BLOCK is meant to suggest a charter improvements for anima to
better define our mutual desire to share whatever is applicable and
not reinvent unnecessarily, then where is the proposed charter text change ?
Cheers
Toerless
P.S.: Also, if i may throw in some random tidbit of technology thoughts:
I love home networks (and the WG for it), because it is the best place
for IPv6 to eliminate IPv4 and start creating fresh, better IP
network. I have a lot of doubt that we are anywhere close to going that
route especially in larger enterprises, so the address management for
IPv4 in those networks is going to be a crucial requirement where i don't
think homenet could (or should) be any big help. And i am not sure if i would
want to hold my breath for a lot of IPv4 adress complexity reduction in
IoT either. But certainly autonomic processes cold rather help than hurt
in that matter.
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:50:13PM +0000, Leddy, John wrote:
> My worry on this topic is that we are referring to ³the Home² and ³the
> Enterprise².
> It isn¹t that clear of a distinction. This isn¹t just a simple L2 flat
> home vs. a Fortune 1000 enterprise.
>
> The home is getting more complex and includes work from home; IOT, home
> security, hot spots, cloud services, policies, discovery etc.
> Large numbers of SMB¹s look like more high end residential than they do
> large enterprises.
>
> It would be ideal to have a solution that spans the range of size and
> complexity for both residential and enterprise.
> Perhaps enabling features/capabilities where required.
>
> Also, as far as IPV6 connectivity residential is probably ahead of
> enterprises in adopting V6 centric architectures and services.
> Residential doesn¹t have much of a choice, it just happens.
>
> 2cents, John
>
> On 10/2/14, 9:15 AM, "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On 02/10/14 13:49, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
> >> My personal goal is that what we do in ANIMA is fully compatible with
> >> and ideally used in homenet. It would feel wrong to me to have an
> >> infrastructure that doesn't work in a homenet.
> >>
> >> The security bootstrap is a good example of what we can achieve, with
> >> reasonable effort.
> >
> >FWIW, it is not clear to me that the reasonable requirements
> >for provisioning device security information (or bootstrapping
> >if we wanted to call it that) are the same.
> >
> >In enterprise environments we see fewer larger vendors of devices.
> >In the home where we additionally have a large range of vendors
> >many of whom are tiny and leverage a lot of OSS and who could
> >perhaps not take part in the kind of provisioning infrastructure
> >that is quite reasonable for enterprises and their vendors.
> >
> >I do think both want to end up in the same state, where devices
> >are authorised for connection to the network and where there is
> >some keying material usable for security, but I'd be surprised
> >if one approach to getting there worked the same way for both
> >homes and enterprises.
> >
> >S.
> >
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
