Right - but we still have to agree on the admin or, as you put it,
ownership model. At least one of the proposal for autonomic networking is
a centralized approach as opposed to configuring a single authentication
password on each new device (as one with do with a WiFi network).
Acee
On 10/3/14, 7:34 PM, Mark Baugher (mbaugher) mbaug...@cisco.com wrote:
I voiced the opinion that someone has to own the homenet, as distinct
from who might own the CPEs and routers on the homenet. In the same
way that some ISP CPEs let the user set the Wi-Fi password, the user or
an agent for the use needs to take homenet ownership (or in the case of
autonomic devices, transfer ownership). This cannot be done plug
and play, there needs to be some ceremony. It's encouraging that
the vast majority of users in homes, small offices and small businesses
manage to configure their Wi-Fi Protected Access. Some ceremonies
work to improve privacy and security.
The home network needs to be owned by the home user(s) or agent (could
be the ISP or some over-the-top retail solution, etc.).
Mark
On Oct 3, 2014, at 6:39 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) a...@cisco.com wrote:
One thing we need to do in homenet is agree on the network
administration
model. I believe many of us started with the assumption of plug and play
but are now accepting the fact that minimal configuration will be
required
to vet devices on the homenet. If we can agree on similar network admin
models and, as Ted pointed out, requirements on connecting devices, then
we be may able to use similar solutions.
Acee
On 10/2/14, 9:33 PM, Sheng Jiang jiangsh...@huawei.com wrote:
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 +, 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
