Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
>> I think you're underestimating normal people, James. > Bear with me please. With you -- always. > It's worth noting that in the vast majority of cases like you describe, > the CE router provided by the ISP is only serviceable by the provider, or > if it *is* serviceable by the subscriber, the serviceability is > ridiculously tortuous and very limited. Uh-huh. But there's just one single uplink behind which there's a local network with multiple hosts -- unlike the one uplink-one host topology you were describing in your earlier mail. >> At least over here, there definitely is a market for non-trivial home >> networks > Indeed, and I think there is definitely a case for IETF establishing > standards for how to use Internet protocols in them, as HOMENET is > doing. What I don't think is helpful is gating our development of those > standards on the predicate that ISPs should have anything to do with > it. Agreed, as long as we don't assume normal people want one uplink per host. -- Juliusz ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
> 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. I think you're underestimating normal people, James. I do not remember the last time I've been in a flat that didn't have: - an ISP-provided CPE; - a network-connected media playback device (either a Windows machine or a gaming console connected to a large); - a WiFi network with a password that's shared with the guests. When people learn I'm a network person, they ask me suprisingly technical questions. Youtube stutters when I'm in the kitchen, how do I improve the WiFi coverage without any new wires. My wife uses a Mac, can I stream her music to my android phone, I found an app for that but it didn't work well. What's the title of the movie you told me about, no, don't bother, I'll find it on BitTorrent. At least over here, there definitely is a market for non-trivial home networks: - flats in the 19th century areas of Paris, where WiFi has trouble crossing the thick walls and so you cannot easily put new cabling; - shared flats (students and young professionals), where each tenant wants good Internet access in their room, there's a shared media playback device and a shared NAS full of music; - student halls (a whole story in themselves); - people who need to provide WiFi access to others (small cafes, doctor waiting rooms, airBNB). -- Juliusz ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
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
james woodyattwrote: > 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
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
On Oct 26, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Gert Doeringwrote: > "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
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
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
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
> 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
james woodyattwrote: >> >> [...] 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
Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
Hi Michael, Let me try to explain it …, just for clarity, because that belongs to v6ops. I started to work in an update of the original RFC7084 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis/), in order to include support for the newer transition mechanism. In the last Chicago meeting, it was adopted as a WG item. Then I got the suggestion to include also HNCP support, and I did, and worked out a couple of versions of that document. However, in Prague, there was a push-back, and the WG basically decided that I should not continue that way, and instead I should have a new document “only” for the transition mechanism and not include explicit support for HNCP and run that thru homenet. So, I worked out https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition/. I personally believe it is a missing opportunity to get the “default” IPv6 CPE that is typically provided by the ISP having HNCP support. So, what I’m suggesting to Homenet is to have an explicit document for ISPs that still want to have RFC7084+transition+HNCP, to be able to reference in the RFQs to those 3 documents. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: homenet <homenet-boun...@ietf.org> en nombre de Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> Responder a: <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> Fecha: martes, 24 de octubre de 2017, 18:44 Para: <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> CC: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org> Asunto: Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote: > Hi James, > I included HNCP in RFC7084-bis following your request :-( Where is the document being revised? RFC7084 turns out to be a document which is both requirements on CE routers, but also implicitely requirements on ISPs to provide things to compliant CE routers. I would like to have either both explicitely in an RFC7084bis, or have two documents. I'd sure like to get some of our (HOMENET) DNS forward/reverse requirements into the RFC7084bis-ISP-requirements. > So, concentrating in homenet. > Do, repeating my 2nd questions, do we believe we need a specific > document HOMENET document to suggest to include in CE, or to say how to > do it, or whatever? I'm just not parsing this question, btw. > Now, the questions I’ve for this WG is: > 1) Do you think I should mention other homenet documents ? 2) Do > you think we should have a specific homenet document requiring the > support of homenet for IPv6 CE routers, so for example this becomes an > integral part of testing by ISPs, IPv6 Ready Logo, or even RFQs, etc.? > I will be happy to work in a homenet document if we believe that 2 > above is needed. Anyone else interested? I think that we need some additional text in 7084bis that permits a 7084bis-only device to not screw up a HOMENET network. I don't have specific examples at the moment, but I recall we had various discussions in the past about how things might work or fail to work. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
JORDI PALET MARTINEZwrote: > Hi James, > I included HNCP in RFC7084-bis following your request :-( Where is the document being revised? RFC7084 turns out to be a document which is both requirements on CE routers, but also implicitely requirements on ISPs to provide things to compliant CE routers. I would like to have either both explicitely in an RFC7084bis, or have two documents. I'd sure like to get some of our (HOMENET) DNS forward/reverse requirements into the RFC7084bis-ISP-requirements. > So, concentrating in homenet. > Do, repeating my 2nd questions, do we believe we need a specific > document HOMENET document to suggest to include in CE, or to say how to > do it, or whatever? I'm just not parsing this question, btw. > Now, the questions I’ve for this WG is: > 1) Do you think I should mention other homenet documents ? 2) Do > you think we should have a specific homenet document requiring the > support of homenet for IPv6 CE routers, so for example this becomes an > integral part of testing by ISPs, IPv6 Ready Logo, or even RFQs, etc.? > I will be happy to work in a homenet document if we believe that 2 > above is needed. Anyone else interested? I think that we need some additional text in 7084bis that permits a 7084bis-only device to not screw up a HOMENET network. I don't have specific examples at the moment, but I recall we had various discussions in the past about how things might work or fail to work. -- 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
Hi, On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:12:30AM -0700, james woodyatt wrote: > I think it would be better if you leave aside all mention of > HOMENET protocols from the RFC 7084-bis draft. That document is > mainly intended for first-mile internet service providers, and I > think the less the have to say about how residential networks operate > behind the demarcation point at the edge of their networks, the > better for everyone. This would give HOMENET optimal freedom to > write standards for interoperability of devices intended for home > networks without having to get mired in the tar pit of dealing with > first-mile internet service provider stuff. I find the model of "there is a CPE, and behind that CPE, I connect another router to get homenet functionality" a bit unsatisfactory. Is that what you're saying how home Internet connections should 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
Yes, of course, I’m happy to run that show. I’m not really sure if this requires more than just a couple of slides, just to launch the discussion and gather opinion, but I will work on it, and of course, happy to heard what others believe I should include. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: homenet <homenet-boun...@ietf.org> en nombre de "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7...@att.com> Responder a: <bs7...@att.com> Fecha: martes, 24 de octubre de 2017, 17:33 Para: "jordi.pa...@consulintel.es" <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> CC: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org> Asunto: Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers As chair... I think it would be useful for homenet to discuss how to propagate its protocols into general purpose home network routers (that people may use at the edge or interior) and also what may or may not be good to include in requirements specifically targeting routers at the customer's edge (CE). Jordi: if you would like to bravely volunteer to help guide this discussion by being the person at the presenter microphone, that would be great. We could base discussion on the 7084-bis draft so you don't need to have another draft; but maybe some slides focused on the specific homenet questions. If others in homenet think having this discussion is a bad idea please let me/us know. Barbara > On Oct 24, 2017, at 1:07 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote: > > Hi James, > > I included HNCP in RFC7084-bis following your request :-( > > So even if I’d only a couple of answers, I think it we are on the right track … > > So, concentrating in homenet. > > Do, repeating my 2nd questions, do we believe we need a specific document HOMENET document to suggest to include in CE, or to say how to do it, or whatever? > > Maybe it is interesting, if the chairs agree, to include this question in the WG agenda for the next meeting? > > Regards, > Jordi > > > -Mensaje original- > De: homenet <homenet-boun...@ietf.org> en nombre de james woodyatt <j...@google.com> > Responder a: <j...@google.com> > Fecha: lunes, 23 de octubre de 2017, 22:12 > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>, HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org> > Asunto: Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers > >On Oct 23, 2017, at 00:48, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote: > > >Now, in this version I’ve NOT included the HNCP support as a requirement, however I still mention it as: > >The end-user network is a stub network, in the sense that is not > providing transit to other external networks. However, HNCP > ([RFC7788]) allows support for automatic provisioning of downstream > routers. Figure 1 illustrates the model topology for the end-user > network. > >Now, the questions I’ve for this WG is: > >1) Do you think I should mention other homenet documents ? >2) Do you think we should have a specific homenet document requiring the support of homenet for IPv6 CE routers, so for example this becomes an integral part of testing by ISPs, IPv6 Ready Logo, or even RFQs, etc.? > >I will be happy to work in a homenet document if we believe that 2 above is needed. Anyone else interested? > > > > > >I think it would be better if you leave aside all mention of HOMENET protocols from the RFC 7084-bis draft. That document is mainly intended for first-mile internet service providers, and I think the less the have to say about how residential networks operate behind the demarcation point at the edge of their networks, the better for everyone. This would give HOMENET optimal freedom to write standards for interoperability of devices intended for home networks without having to get mired in the tar pit of dealing with first-mile internet service provider stuff. > > >--james woodyatt <j...@google.com> > > > > >___ >homenet mailing list >homenet@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_homenet=DwIGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog=_bR9FvzwQbxh-O6P0rZaAVc0qP9N51NHDxBJbsA_U3g=WZA2wxLl7avD8GFCF7eXUzLwkfVvFzOxKZFGPXPtYDE= > > > > > ** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/
Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
As chair... I think it would be useful for homenet to discuss how to propagate its protocols into general purpose home network routers (that people may use at the edge or interior) and also what may or may not be good to include in requirements specifically targeting routers at the customer's edge (CE). Jordi: if you would like to bravely volunteer to help guide this discussion by being the person at the presenter microphone, that would be great. We could base discussion on the 7084-bis draft so you don't need to have another draft; but maybe some slides focused on the specific homenet questions. If others in homenet think having this discussion is a bad idea please let me/us know. Barbara > On Oct 24, 2017, at 1:07 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote: > > Hi James, > > I included HNCP in RFC7084-bis following your request :-( > > So even if I’d only a couple of answers, I think it we are on the right track > … > > So, concentrating in homenet. > > Do, repeating my 2nd questions, do we believe we need a specific document > HOMENET document to suggest to include in CE, or to say how to do it, or > whatever? > > Maybe it is interesting, if the chairs agree, to include this question in the > WG agenda for the next meeting? > > Regards, > Jordi > > > -Mensaje original- > De: homenet <homenet-boun...@ietf.org> en nombre de james woodyatt > <j...@google.com> > Responder a: <j...@google.com> > Fecha: lunes, 23 de octubre de 2017, 22:12 > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>, HOMENET > <homenet@ietf.org> > Asunto: Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers > >On Oct 23, 2017, at 00:48, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote: > > >Now, in this version I’ve NOT included the HNCP support as a requirement, > however I still mention it as: > >The end-user network is a stub network, in the sense that is not > providing transit to other external networks. However, HNCP > ([RFC7788]) allows support for automatic provisioning of downstream > routers. Figure 1 illustrates the model topology for the end-user > network. > >Now, the questions I’ve for this WG is: > >1) Do you think I should mention other homenet documents ? >2) Do you think we should have a specific homenet document requiring the > support of homenet for IPv6 CE routers, so for example this becomes an > integral part of testing by ISPs, IPv6 Ready Logo, or even RFQs, etc.? > >I will be happy to work in a homenet document if we believe that 2 above > is needed. Anyone else interested? > > > > > >I think it would be better if you leave aside all mention of HOMENET > protocols from the RFC 7084-bis draft. That document is mainly intended for > first-mile internet service providers, and I think the less the have to say > about how residential networks operate behind the demarcation point at the > edge of their networks, the better for everyone. This would give HOMENET > optimal freedom to write standards for interoperability of devices intended > for home networks without having to get mired in the tar pit of dealing with > first-mile internet service provider stuff. > > >--james woodyatt <j...@google.com> > > > > >___ >homenet mailing list >homenet@ietf.org > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_homenet=DwIGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog=_bR9FvzwQbxh-O6P0rZaAVc0qP9N51NHDxBJbsA_U3g=WZA2wxLl7avD8GFCF7eXUzLwkfVvFzOxKZFGPXPtYDE= > > > > > > ** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.consulintel.es=DwIGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog=_bR9FvzwQbxh-O6P0rZaAVc0qP9N51NHDxBJbsA_U3g=HKL3FbaYGYEKqIpNRC_7FRP4YfGsmyViXh2wV5zCEw8= > > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly > pr
Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
Hi James, I included HNCP in RFC7084-bis following your request :-( So even if I’d only a couple of answers, I think it we are on the right track … So, concentrating in homenet. Do, repeating my 2nd questions, do we believe we need a specific document HOMENET document to suggest to include in CE, or to say how to do it, or whatever? Maybe it is interesting, if the chairs agree, to include this question in the WG agenda for the next meeting? Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: homenet <homenet-boun...@ietf.org> en nombre de james woodyatt <j...@google.com> Responder a: <j...@google.com> Fecha: lunes, 23 de octubre de 2017, 22:12 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>, HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org> Asunto: Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers On Oct 23, 2017, at 00:48, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote: Now, in this version I’ve NOT included the HNCP support as a requirement, however I still mention it as: The end-user network is a stub network, in the sense that is not providing transit to other external networks. However, HNCP ([RFC7788]) allows support for automatic provisioning of downstream routers. Figure 1 illustrates the model topology for the end-user network. Now, the questions I’ve for this WG is: 1) Do you think I should mention other homenet documents ? 2) Do you think we should have a specific homenet document requiring the support of homenet for IPv6 CE routers, so for example this becomes an integral part of testing by ISPs, IPv6 Ready Logo, or even RFQs, etc.? I will be happy to work in a homenet document if we believe that 2 above is needed. Anyone else interested? I think it would be better if you leave aside all mention of HOMENET protocols from the RFC 7084-bis draft. That document is mainly intended for first-mile internet service providers, and I think the less the have to say about how residential networks operate behind the demarcation point at the edge of their networks, the better for everyone. This would give HOMENET optimal freedom to write standards for interoperability of devices intended for home networks without having to get mired in the tar pit of dealing with first-mile internet service provider stuff. --james woodyatt <j...@google.com> ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:12 PM, james woodyattwrote: > On Oct 23, 2017, at 00:48, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < > jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote: > > > Now, in this version I’ve NOT included the HNCP support as a requirement, > however I still mention it as: > > The end-user network is a stub network, in the sense that is not > providing transit to other external networks. However, HNCP > ([RFC7788]) allows support for automatic provisioning of downstream > routers. Figure 1 illustrates the model topology for the end-user > network. > > Now, the questions I’ve for this WG is: > > 1) Do you think I should mention other homenet documents ? > 2) Do you think we should have a specific homenet document requiring the > support of homenet for IPv6 CE routers, so for example this becomes an > integral part of testing by ISPs, IPv6 Ready Logo, or even RFQs, etc.? > > I will be happy to work in a homenet document if we believe that 2 above > is needed. Anyone else interested? > > > I think it would be better if you leave aside all mention of HOMENET > protocols from the RFC 7084-bis draft. That document is mainly intended for > first-mile internet service providers, and I think the less the have to say > about how residential networks operate behind the demarcation point at the > edge of their networks, the better for everyone. This would give HOMENET > optimal freedom to write standards for interoperability of devices intended > for home networks without having to get mired in the tar pit of dealing > with first-mile internet service provider stuff. > It would also be my preference to have this separate from 7084. > > > --james woodyatt > > > > > ___ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > -- Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
[homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
Hi all, Some of you probably are aware of an attempt to update RFC7084 to a –bis version. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis/ In this work, it was suggested to me to include HNCP support, so I added this LAN requirement: L-16: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD provide HNCP (Home Networking Control Protocol) services, as specified in [RFC7788]. However, it seems that the latest decision of v6ops, is “don’t touch RFC7084” and instead make a separate document for the IPv6 transition requirements for IPv6 CE routers, which I updated a few days ago: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition/ Now, in this version I’ve NOT included the HNCP support as a requirement, however I still mention it as: The end-user network is a stub network, in the sense that is not providing transit to other external networks. However, HNCP ([RFC7788]) allows support for automatic provisioning of downstream routers. Figure 1 illustrates the model topology for the end-user network. Now, the questions I’ve for this WG is: 1) Do you think I should mention other homenet documents ? 2) Do you think we should have a specific homenet document requiring the support of homenet for IPv6 CE routers, so for example this becomes an integral part of testing by ISPs, IPv6 Ready Logo, or even RFQs, etc.? I will be happy to work in a homenet document if we believe that 2 above is needed. Anyone else interested? Regards, Jordi ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet