Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 03:53:32PM -0700, james woodyatt wrote:
> The protocols we are developing here in HOMENET are for the tiny 
> minority of people who prefer to build their own home networks instead 

In that case, we're wasting effort.  "The tiny minority" can just take
an OpenWRT box, install what they need on it, and run it whichever way
they want it.  No need for HNCP, these folks can install and configure
OSPF or ISIS if they want that, set up real DNS zones, etc.

The beauty of the HOMENET suite is "plug together a number of boxes
from different ISPs and vendors and it automatically leads to a nice
multihomed and network robust against failure or mis-plugging of
cables".  

"The tiny minority" does not need that, the large majority does.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

[Michael Richardson]

james woodyatt  wrote:
> Moreover, I don't believe there are any ISPs that are interested in the
> "My Friendly ISP" model at this time. And I would further contend that
> the word "friendly" is doing some rather Orwellian political work in
> that construction.

They do exist.
Unfortunately, they generally aren't large.

--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-





signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

[james woodyatt]

On 10/26/2017 11:39 AM, Gert Doering wrote:

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:32:44AM -0700, james woodyatt wrote:

Accordingly, I strongly recommend that HOMENET dispense with the "My
Friendly ISP" model with extreme prejudice, and adopt what I shall call
the "HOMENET Castle Doctrine" as a matter of working group policy.


I claim that this is a sure way to kill homenet from being ever deployed.


I would counter that relying on ISPs to adopt a HOMENET standard is 
certain to fail. They have already demonstrated that they will block any 
revision to RFC 7084 that calls for adopting even HNCP, much less the 
rest of the HOMENET protocol stack.


If you want to kill HOMENET, then make it a predicate that ISPs have to 
adopt it. That will ensure it goes nowhere at all.



"Normal" People just don't buy a second router for their ISP link if they
already have one, or a 3rd and 4th one if they happen to have two ISP
links.

So, what do we think a future home network for normal people is going to
look like?


I think "normal" people don't even want to buy the 1st router for their 
ISP link. What they want to do is have the ISP link go straight to their 
internet-connected device. Like a smart phone does. When you buy a new 
device, you buy a new ISP link for it.


The protocols we are developing here in HOMENET are for the tiny 
minority of people who prefer to build their own home networks instead 
of just plumbing their ISP directly up to every device in their home. To 
facilitate that model, the HOMENET Castle Doctrine, I think we'll make 
its audience-- as well as ISPs-- happier, if we code our standards to 
the greatest common denominator of ISP linkage, then facilitate building 
HOMENET as a platform into which ISPs have zero visibility.



--james

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

[Ted Lemon]

On Oct 26, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Gert Doering  wrote:
> "Normal" People just don't buy a second router for their ISP link if they
> already have one, or a 3rd and 4th one if they happen to have two ISP
> links.

Yup.   This is why Google Home, Apple Home, Amazon Echo, Eero, Ubiquiti, etc., 
have failed so completely to gain market share.

:)

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

[David Oran]

On 26 Oct 2017, at 14:39, Gert Doering wrote:


Hi,

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:32:44AM -0700, james woodyatt wrote:

Accordingly, I strongly recommend that HOMENET dispense with the "My
Friendly ISP" model with extreme prejudice, and adopt what I shall 
call

the "HOMENET Castle Doctrine" as a matter of working group policy.


I claim that this is a sure way to kill homenet from being ever 
deployed.


"Normal" People just don't buy a second router for their ISP link if 
they

already have one, or a 3rd and 4th one if they happen to have two ISP
links.

True, but a fair number of folks have just a L2 CPE like a cable modem 
device and provide their own router, as I do on Comcast cable.


So, what do we think a future home network for normal people is going 
to

look like?

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. 
Grundner-Culemann

D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet


DaveO

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:32:44AM -0700, james woodyatt wrote:
> Accordingly, I strongly recommend that HOMENET dispense with the "My 
> Friendly ISP" model with extreme prejudice, and adopt what I shall call 
> the "HOMENET Castle Doctrine" as a matter of working group policy.

I claim that this is a sure way to kill homenet from being ever deployed.

"Normal" People just don't buy a second router for their ISP link if they
already have one, or a 3rd and 4th one if they happen to have two ISP
links.

So, what do we think a future home network for normal people is going to
look like?

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

[james woodyatt]

On 10/26/2017 08:22 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>On 10/24/2017 07:00 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
>>

I find the model of "there is a CPE, and behind that CPE, I connect
another router to get homenet functionality" a bit unsatisfactory.


I think there are two possible deployment models.

1. The « My Friendly ISP » model [...]
2. The « My Home, my Castle » model [...]


I agree.


Note that the « My Home, my Castle » model is more general, since it can
implement the « My Friendly ISP » model by co-locating the EHR and the
CPE.  I don't think the opposite is true -- once you've leaked HNCP data
to the ISP, there's no way to unleak it.


Moreover, I don't believe there are any ISPs that are interested in the 
"My Friendly ISP" model at this time. And I would further contend that 
the word "friendly" is doing some rather Orwellian political work in 
that construction.


Accordingly, I strongly recommend that HOMENET dispense with the "My 
Friendly ISP" model with extreme prejudice, and adopt what I shall call 
the "HOMENET Castle Doctrine" as a matter of working group policy.



--james

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

> I find the model of "there is a CPE, and behind that CPE, I connect
> another router to get homenet functionality" a bit unsatisfactory.

I think there are two possible deployment models.

1. The « My Friendly ISP » model

Every ISP-provided CPE participates in HNCP.  Each ISP has access to all
the information flooded into the Homenet, including information about
External Links announced by other ISPs.

2. The « My Home, my Castle » model

HNCP ends at the Edge Home Router (EHR).  The CPE is outside the Homenet,
and the link between the CPE and the EHR is treated as External (untrusted)
by HNCP.  Information between the CPE and the Homenet is communicated over
non-Homenet protocols such as DHCPv6-PD.  The CPE has no topology
information about the Homenet, and doesn't even know that the Homenet is
connected to multiple CPEs.

Note that the « My Home, my Castle » model is more general, since it can
implement the « My Friendly ISP » model by co-locating the EHR and the
CPE.  I don't think the opposite is true -- once you've leaked HNCP data
to the ISP, there's no way to unleak it.

-- Juliusz

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

[Michael Richardson]

james woodyatt  wrote:
>>
>> [...] and also what may or may not be good to include in requirements
>> specifically targeting routers at the customer's edge (CE).

> I think it's a waste of time for HOMENET to propose requirements for
> routers in service provider networks, event those at the edge that
> connects to subscribers. Those requirements will be neither welcome nor
> observed by the industry.

I think it's appropriate for HOMENET to review and comment on a document in
v6ops that doing that.  Do you agree?

I'd like a 7084bis document to focus less on requirements for the CE
*router*, and more on what shapes of bits we need to pass between CE and ISP.

--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-





signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet