Re: [homenet] [Anima] ANIMA scope + homenet interaction + charter v15

2014-10-31 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 01/11/2014 12:28, Ralph Droms wrote: On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: On Oct 31, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Well yes. That's exactly why in autonomic management of prefixes, we need peer to peer negotiation

Re: [homenet] [Anima] ANIMA scope + homenet interaction + charter v15

2014-10-30 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 30/10/2014 22:08, Markus Stenberg wrote: On 28.10.2014, at 22.13, Benoit Claise bcla...@cisco.com wrote: 1. scope OLD: The ANIMA working group will initially focus on enterprise, ISP networks and IoT. NEW:The ANIMA working group focuses on professionally-managed networks. +1.

Re: [homenet] [Anima] ANIMA scope + homenet interaction + charter v15

2014-10-30 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Rene, On 30/10/2014 16:50, Rene Struik wrote: Hi Brian: It is very puzzling to me to see essential deployments that would be a test case on viability of the concept of semi-automatic management (in casu: constrained networks and devices) being removed from the charter. I have not seen any

Re: [homenet] Slots request for presenting Homenet work at Anima session

2014-10-27 Thread Brian E Carpenter
FYI the status of the anima meeting in HNL will only be decided at this weeks's IESG meeting and the chairs are not yet known, so the agenda process is running late. Regards Brian Carpenter (with no hat on) On 28/10/2014 00:08, Pierre PFISTER wrote: Hello Anima future chairs/participants,

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-barth-homenet-hncp-security-trust-01.txt

2014-10-22 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 22/10/2014 23:54, Ray Bellis wrote: On 22 Oct 2014, at 02:02, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Up one more level: the charter looks pretty out of date in general. Hi Brian, The charter itself still reflects our primary focus. I believe it still accurately

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

2014-10-22 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Michael, On 23/10/2014 07:04, Michael Richardson wrote: James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote: My assertion: Given HNCP generated one spans whole administrative domain, _and_ should not have routing anywhere outside it, it’s uniqueness does not _matter_.

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-barth-homenet-hncp-security-trust-01.txt

2014-10-21 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Hi, I agree with whoever it was that said there is not enough explanation of the threat model in this draft. The result is that I really can't evaluate whether the proposed solution is complete or adequate. The other thing that bothers me is that we need a secure homenet, not just a secure HNCP.

[homenet] On renumbering [was: Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?]

2014-10-15 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 15/10/2014 22:48, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Markus Stenberg wrote: Every time I hear about ISP-forced customer renumberings, the more I start to think that 1+ ULA prefixes per home is a MUST, not a SHOULD. For me this isn't just about ISP-forced customer

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

2014-10-15 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 16/10/2014 11:57, Michael Thomas wrote: On 10/15/14, 3:49 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Oct 15, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: See, I don't find that ideal at all. If I'm swinging around on my backyard trapeze watching the flying wallendas instructional video from my

Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

2014-10-14 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 15/10/2014 08:31, Ted Lemon wrote: On Oct 14, 2014, at 2:19 PM, James Woodyatt j...@nestlabs.com wrote: On the topic of the original question, if I were to editorialize here, then I would want to see something like this: I get that you have an opinion on this, but you haven't actually

Re: [homenet] homenet-prefix-assignment update - prefix length 64 and on prefix comparison

2014-10-09 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 09/10/2014 22:29, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Thanks for updating. Le 09/10/2014 11:26, Pierre Pfister a écrit : Hello, I’m proposing this change then. 1. In case the provided prefix is 64, the default consist in assigning prefixes of length 64 first. 2. I’m adding a reference to

Re: [homenet] homenet-prefix-assignment update - prefix length 64 and on prefix comparison

2014-10-08 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 09/10/2014 03:21, Tim Chown wrote: On 8 Oct 2014, at 14:14, Pierre Pfister pierre.pfis...@darou.fr wrote: Why should we mandate homenet implementations to *brake* in situations where they could work fine ? Why should we voluntarily prevent a link from being configured if we actually can

Re: [homenet] [Anima] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter

2014-10-07 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 08/10/2014 03:23, Mark Townsley wrote: On Oct 2, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: but I would expect HNCP to be much sooner than Anima. Then anima is going to have to deal with HNCP one day in any case. The handoff between the distributed manner

Re: [homenet] [Anima] Ted Lemon's Block on charter-ietf-anima-00-09: (with BLOCK)

2014-10-05 Thread Brian E Carpenter
(cc's trimmed. I'm not sure the whole IESG wants this in their inboxen.) On 06/10/2014 08:51, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: On 10/4/14, 10:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/10/2014 09:24, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Right - but we still have to agree on the admin

Re: [homenet] [Anima] Ted Lemon's Block on charter-ietf-anima-00-09: (with BLOCK)

2014-10-04 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 05/10/2014 09:24, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: 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

Re: [homenet] [Anima] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter

2014-10-02 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 02/10/2014 19:26, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: This use case is precisely what draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment does (which has roots all the way back to draft-arkko-homenet-prefix-assignment-00

Re: [homenet] [Anima] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter

2014-10-02 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 02/10/2014 21:20, Markus Stenberg wrote: On 1.10.2014, at 22.44, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Personal comments on this: 1) One reason for not stating homenet as part of the scope is that we do not want to interfere with the current progress in homenet. Personally

Re: [homenet] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter

2014-10-01 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Pierre, On 02/10/2014 02:58, Pierre Pfister wrote: Hello Benoit, Looks like ANIMA’s goals are quite similar to Homenet’s indeed. Except that homenet has a limited scope and is well advanced in its work. Please allow me to comment the charter. 1. Why would you put the ‘negociation

Re: [homenet] [Anima] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter

2014-10-01 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Markus, On 02/10/2014 05:27, Markus Stenberg wrote: On 1.10.2014, at 16.20, Benoit Claise bcla...@cisco.com wrote: Based on the previous UCAN BoF, we are considering having an ANIMA WG: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach This is now a proposed charter, under consideration by

Re: [homenet] [Anima] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter

2014-10-01 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 02/10/2014 13:26, Mark Townsley wrote: On Oct 1, 2014, at 9:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: 1) One reason for not stating homenet as part of the scope is that we do not want to interfere with the current progress in homenet. Personally I think there is a lot

Re: [homenet] HNCP security?

2014-09-18 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 19/09/2014 09:17, Michael Thomas wrote: On 9/18/14, 2:10 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: Self-signed certs bring only confusion, IMO: they are nothing more than a raw key with an unsubstantiated claim to another name, along with a whole lot more ASN.1 baggage beyond what is needed to parse

Re: [homenet] HNCP security?

2014-09-17 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 18/09/2014 02:58, Michael Thomas wrote: On 09/16/2014 11:31 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: As was presented in.. err, London?, shared secrets are bad. To really do this properly, we need device specific keys and some kind of list of devices that are allowed to connect, perhaps by having

Re: [homenet] HNCP security?

2014-09-14 Thread Brian E Carpenter
...@gmail.com Brian E Carpenter writes: On 13/09/2014 17:40, Markus Stenberg wrote: On 13.9.2014, at 5.50, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/09/2014 22:23, Markus Stenberg wrote: ... 1) Can we assume secure L2 and/or appropriate device configuration by the manufacturer/ISP

Re: [homenet] Clarification on Routing Thoughts

2014-07-26 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 27/07/2014 03:30, Brian Haberman wrote: ... The goal should be increasing the probability of interoperability between devices from different vendors. Exactly, which traditionally means a single mandatory-to-implement protocol, even if it's the Tossacoin protocol. Whether vendors take any

Re: [homenet] New draft : draft-bonnetain-hncp-security

2014-07-04 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 05/07/2014 02:10, Pierre Pfister wrote: Hello Mikael, There is indeed a quite large common basis between Homenet and ANIMA problem spaces. It appears that Homenet is one of the case that is presented as a possible use-case for the UCAN BoF (draft-carpenter-nmrg-homenet-an-use-case).

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-arch-16.txt

2014-06-19 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 20/06/2014 01:03, Ted Lemon wrote: ... Please do not discuss changes to other parts of the document, because it will just waste the working group's time. Nevertheless, this nit Mikael noticed should be fixed: Since RFC6204 has been obsoleted by RFC7084, shouldn't we refer to 7084

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

2014-06-13 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 14/06/2014 02:29, Ted Lemon wrote: On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net wrote: Ted, you asked Ray and I to issue a WGLC on a very specific set of text. You are falling into your own trap of going beyond that. No, Mark, I agreed with Ray that the proposed text

[homenet] Anima

2014-06-12 Thread Brian E Carpenter
the Anima discussion. Brian Original Message Subject: Reading list Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:45:35 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com Organization: University of Auckland To: an...@ietf.org Hi, The very basic reading list for anima is: http

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

2014-06-12 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Catching up on this thread (message times are based on NZST, UTC+12): On 13/06/2014 00:45, Markus Stenberg wrote: This sounds _way_ too specific to me. I agree. Discussion of adding metrics together, although it seems like Routing 101, just seems out of place. On 13/06/2014 01:59, Ted Lemon

Re: [homenet] HNCP: Few proposed changes for next draft version

2014-06-03 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 04/06/2014 01:34, Michael Richardson wrote: Steven Barth cy...@openwrt.org wrote: Well maybe it was worded a bit ambiguously. The main idea behind this was that an HNCP router should provide basic connectivity in the form of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6-PD to non-HNCP-routers. 7084

Re: [homenet] Please review the No IPv4 draft

2014-04-21 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 22/04/2014 06:36, Lee Howard wrote: On 4/18/14 11:56 AM, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote: On Apr 18, 2014, at 7:51 AM, Simon Perreault simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca wrote: Got it. So, summarizing, for Android, DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 options would likely not be problematic, but an RA option

Re: [homenet] HCNP: my points this morning

2014-03-05 Thread Brian E Carpenter
- The prefix assignment algorithm supports /128. I’m not sure we want Homenet to have such ‘carve it into /128’ option. Homenet doesn’t want to do that. It was pretty clear in 6man yesterday that there is little support for longer subnet prefixes than 64, and they are forbidden by the homenet

Re: [homenet] RFC: dhcpv4 to slaac DNS naming scheme

2014-02-15 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Hi, draft-taht-kelley-hunt-dhcpv4-to-slaac-naming-00 says: IPv6 hosts can acquire IPv6 addresses using SLAAC, but there is no mechanism allowing them to register a name in the DNS database other than a DNS update, which creates a very difficult key management problem. Can you

Re: [homenet] DSCP

2014-02-07 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 08/02/2014 00:20, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: Absolutely, but it means resetting DSCP, thus breaking QoS in other parts of the packet path. Well to be more precise, it means making sure DSCP is a value that the customer is allowed to use (or

Re: [homenet] Prefix semantics (not) [was: DHCP PD]

2014-02-06 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 06/02/2014 20:46, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote: We designed diffserv for this purpose and it works well and is quite widely used in corporate networks. Wasting prefixes to distinguish traffic types is an incredibly bad idea. Problem with DSCP

Re: [homenet] DHCP PD

2014-02-04 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 05/02/2014 12:13, Michael Richardson wrote: Pierre Pfister pierre.pfis...@darou.fr wrote: ... For instance, if a prefix is for general purpose, and another is for voice applications, then hosts may only get addresses for voice application, and would therefore not being able to access the

Re: [homenet] Homenet protocol decisions

2014-02-01 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Juliusz, You (and others) who speak of a Homenet Configuration Protocol seem to be making an assumption which is far from clear to me. That assumption is that config parameters in a homenet will come in some sense top-down from a higher level source of authority. I think that's a false

Re: [homenet] Homenet protocol decisions

2014-01-30 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 31/01/2014 10:53, Ole Troan wrote: Brian, requirements from homenet-arch (I might have missed some): - must support multi-homing - each link should be assigned a stable prefix - efficient allocation of prefixes - should support both IPv4 and IPv6 I think you need to add - must allow

[homenet] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt]

2014-01-08 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Seems relevant to homenet... Original Message Subject: I-D Action: draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00.txt Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 07:11:28 -0800 From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-dra...@ietf.org To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available

Re: [homenet] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10

2013-09-24 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 25/09/2013 04:01, Ted Lemon wrote: On Sep 24, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote: I believe that perhaps the title is now wrong. I think that it should say: Requirements for Home Networking for IPv6 (But, it's really more than requirements. It's just

Re: [homenet] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10

2013-09-19 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 20/09/2013 07:43, Ted Lemon wrote: On Sep 19, 2013, at 1:36 PM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote: I agree that it would be good for the working group to evolve the document (see my previous comments about stabilizing the document and having a discussion about unresolved issues). It

Re: [homenet] IETF86 draft minutes

2013-04-02 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Hi Ray, It' a great transcipt, but for those who were not present, can the chairs add the summary and conclusions on each discussion? Brian On 02/04/2013 09:14, Ray Bellis wrote: With massive thanks to Thomas Heide Clausen, the minutes of the Orlando session are now online at:

Re: [homenet] global vs. local naming

2013-03-20 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 19/03/2013 20:39, Michael Thomas wrote: On 03/14/2013 01:43 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 13/03/2013 20:54, Ted Lemon wrote: On Mar 13, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: All of this is lacking in section 3.7. If I were a contractor using this architecture I wouldn't

Re: [homenet] Next steps for draft-behringer-homenet-trust-bootstrap?

2013-03-16 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 15/03/2013 18:49, Michael Thomas wrote: On 03/15/2013 04:04 AM, Robert Cragie wrote: On 14/03/2013 9:42 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: On 03/14/2013 10:03 AM, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote: From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com] [...] In today's world access control is gated at L2

Re: [homenet] Next steps for draft-behringer-homenet-trust-bootstrap?

2013-03-15 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 15/03/2013 11:12, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote: -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] [...] But I think the need goes beyond wireless. If I have visitors, I may not like it if they plug in a device into the Ethernet socket

Re: [homenet] Why do homenets need SD?

2013-03-14 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 13/03/2013 23:47, Michael Thomas wrote: What I find most telling is that after 25 years, printers are still the canonical example of the need for SD. But printers have entire programs/wizards that support their existence, so they're really lousy as a canonical example. It would be

Re: [homenet] Naming and internationalization

2013-03-14 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 14/03/2013 03:03, Andrew Sullivan wrote: In the event the homenet is accessible from outside the homenet (using the global name space), it is vital that the homenet name space follow the rules and conventions of the global name space. In this mode of operation, names in

Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks

2013-02-26 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 26/02/2013 06:39, Fernando Gont wrote: ... I've been lurking for the most time, so.. double-checking: essentially, what you want is that you always keep DNS for nodes in the internal network, and those entries remain up-to-date e.g. in the presence of renumbering? (I guess dynamic updates

[homenet] renumbering the IETF

2013-02-24 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 23/02/2013 05:53, Erik Kline wrote: .. I wonder if we should ask the NOC about performing a renumbering during the next IETF meeting. Ideally, we should be able to perform one or two (or three) renumberings in a week, glean the relevant operational experience, and send a draft to v6ops

Re: [homenet] renumbering the IETF

2013-02-24 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Michael asked: Given happy eyeballs, how will we measure the impact of a v6-only renumbering? By a reduction in IPv6 traffic after the event? In any case, to some extent it's a pass/fail test (where pass = no complaints). Regards Brian On 23/02/2013 08:27, Brian E Carpenter wrote

Re: [homenet] automatic prefix management (OSPF or ISIS version)

2013-02-23 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 22/02/2013 21:11, james woodyatt wrote: This problem is precisely why I campaigned bitterly and vigorously against the adoption and V6OPS and later the publication of RFC 6177. When there was still a consensus that subscribers should always get a /48 prefix I think you must have

Re: [homenet] automatic prefix management (OSPF or ISIS version)

2013-02-23 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 22/02/2013 16:54, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: ... BTW, a side-note on the issue of non-volatile memory. The OSPF autoconfig draft says that an allocated prefix MUST be stored in non-volatile memory and as a result survive a reboot. Speaking for myself, I don't see the need for that; I'm

Re: [homenet] automatic prefix management (OSPF or ISIS version)

2013-02-22 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 22/02/2013 04:50, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: On Feb 22, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote: For a network where there is more than one ISP, is it acceptable for a CPE that has decided that it is PREFIX1:0123::/64, to randomly decide to be PREFIX2:0123::/64? I

Re: [homenet] NPTv6-only home networks

2013-02-22 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 22/02/2013 03:45, Michael Thomas wrote: ... Well, if one of the requirements is that I be able to control my washing machine from across the continent, Actually we need to be clear about that requirement. There are at least three cases I can imagine: 1. I want to control my washing machine

Re: [homenet] Egress Routing Discussion: Baker model

2013-02-22 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 21/02/2013 19:23, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: ... http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-flowlabel-routing Using IS-IS with Role-Based Access Control, Fred Baker, 17-Feb-13 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing IPv6 Source/Destination Routing using

Re: [homenet] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-homenet-arch-07

2013-02-22 Thread Brian E Carpenter
I went through the draft, and noticed an instance of the word hoemnet in section 2.4. Otherwise I think this is now in good shape for publication. Regards Brian On 12/02/2013 15:00, Ray Bellis wrote: This email marks the commencement of Working Group Last Call for

[homenet] FYI: Computer Security and the Modern Home | January 2013 | Communications of the ACM

2013-01-04 Thread Brian E Carpenter
This seems useful as background for a homenet security analysis: http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2013/1/158768-computer-security-and-the-modern-home/fulltext Regards Brian Carpenter ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org

Re: [homenet] prefix assignment on home networks

2012-11-16 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Ole, On 16/11/2012 09:28, Ole Trøan wrote: James, However notionally easy this problem is to address, I imagine that practical matters, at some point, must rise to the top of the pile of points to consider. Those hosts are broken. They can't work in a multi-homed environment. Those

Re: [homenet] prefix assignment on home networks

2012-11-15 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 14/11/2012 22:44, james woodyatt wrote: On Nov 14, 2012, at 13:34 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: I've always seen it to be solved via some kind of source based routing automatically discovered between the ISP routers. My point is that it isn't sufficient to handle this

Re: [homenet] When things go wrong on your homenet

2012-11-14 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 13/11/2012 21:05, Michael Thomas wrote: On 11/13/2012 09:22 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: Each and every part of the router must do everything it can to work without bugging the user. it's enough work to bother them for the *really* important stuff like do I let this device on the network?,

Re: [homenet] regarding recursive DHCPv6-PD (and architecture document)

2012-11-13 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 12/11/2012 17:33, Mark Townsley wrote: Nice to see a constructive thread with suggested text for the editors of the homenet arch, thank you. I'm concerned with any issue a warning type suggestions though. We are working hard to develop automatic configuration that assumes there is no

Re: [homenet] regarding recursive DHCPv6-PD

2012-11-08 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 08/11/2012 09:48, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Wuyts Carl wrote: Well, being a residential CPE vendor, I can confirm some of our customers deploy /64 only to the CPE. Not recommended by us, but being a managed CPE, it's the customer making the final decision on this.

Re: [homenet] regarding recursive DHCPv6-PD (and architecture document)

2012-11-08 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 08/11/2012 12:05, Ted Lemon wrote: On Nov 8, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Fine, but when such an end customer buys a second router and plugs it in, will she get an error message that says Please find a new ISP? In this case I think our only

Re: [homenet] regarding recursive DHCPv6-PD (and architecture document)

2012-11-08 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 08/11/2012 13:45, Mattia Rossi wrote: On 08/11/2012 12:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 08/11/2012 12:05, Ted Lemon wrote: On Nov 8, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Fine, but when such an end customer buys a second router and plugs

Re: [homenet] regarding recursive DHCPv6-PD (and architecture document)

2012-11-08 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 08/11/2012 13:41, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Robert Cragie wrote: In a lot of these conversations, the lightswitch guys (as someone called the LLN proponents) seem to get forgotten. So let's just say that giving a single /64 to the home is incompatible with homenet

Re: [homenet] service announcement vs service discovery

2012-10-23 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 22/10/2012 18:30, Michael Thomas wrote: On 10/22/2012 09:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 19/10/2012 18:16, Michael Thomas wrote: On 10/19/2012 09:36 AM, Tim Chown wrote: We can take comments towards a -06 over the weekend. The most substantial changes are in the Naming and Service

Re: [homenet] service announcement vs service discovery

2012-10-22 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 19/10/2012 18:16, Michael Thomas wrote: On 10/19/2012 09:36 AM, Tim Chown wrote: We can take comments towards a -06 over the weekend. The most substantial changes are in the Naming and Service Discovery section (3.7), so if you have limited time please focus your reading there. One

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-haddad-homenet-multihomed-00

2012-10-01 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Curtis Damien, On 01/10/2012 19:01, Curtis Villamizar wrote: In message 50698d7f.5000...@gmail.com Brian E Carpenter writes: On 01/10/2012 08:32, Damien Saucez wrote: Curtis, Thank you for the comments. Our target in this document is to raise the question of multihoming in personal

Re: [homenet] draft-ietf-homenet-arch-04

2012-09-25 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 25/09/2012 02:01, Don Sturek wrote: Hi Curtis, I would expect most Wi-Fi AP manufacturers to support the same address assignment they do today (ie, manual assignment and DHCP). I would also expect as more IPv6 deployments happen that SLAAC will also be supported (and, yes, even for

Re: [homenet] Unicast DNS within the Homenet?

2012-09-15 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 13/09/2012 21:15, David R Oran wrote: On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: On 09/12/2012 06:57 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: My machines have names. Those names don't change as I move around the world.

Re: [homenet] Unicast DNS within the Homenet?

2012-09-11 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 11/09/2012 08:19, Ray Bellis wrote: ... So the point of the original email was to test that first assumption - i.e. what services don't (or can't) work in-home without a local unicast DNS zone. Excuse my ignorance, but if a LAN has both mDNS and DNS available, what happens when an app calls

Re: [homenet] Unicast DNS within the Homenet?

2012-09-11 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 11/09/2012 14:11, Simon Perreault wrote: Le 2012-09-11 05:17, Brian E Carpenter a écrit : Excuse my ignorance, but if a LAN has both mDNS and DNS available, what happens when an app calls getnameinfo() ? Current situation is: implementation-dependant. In fact, getnameinfo

Re: [homenet] Unicast DNS within the Homenet?

2012-09-10 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 10/09/2012 13:34, Ray Bellis wrote: An interesting question has come up during the Arch Doc team's discussions around naming and service discovery: What in-home services actually require Unicast DNS lookup? [*] Well, that isn't the right question IMNSHO. The one obvious case is in-home

Re: [homenet] Unicast DNS within the Homenet?

2012-09-10 Thread Brian E Carpenter
editors queue. Don On 9/10/12 6:53 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/09/2012 14:09, Ray Bellis wrote: On 10 Sep 2012, at 13:58, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Using literal addresses is evil for many reasons - surely we don't need

Re: [homenet] building a home theater

2012-09-10 Thread Brian E Carpenter
To be completely clear: Original Message Subject: building a home theater Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:13:40 -0700 From: Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com To: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com CC: Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk,homenet@ietf.org Group homenet

Re: [homenet] referrals [ tunnels as way to disambiguate .local]

2012-08-12 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Two quick comments, and then I suggest we drop this thread here. On 12/08/2012 17:18, Curtis Villamizar wrote: In message 502367bd.3010...@gmail.com Brian E Carpenter writes: I get the impression that if NAT didn't exist, then draft-carpenter-referral-ps would server no purpose

Re: [homenet] LQDN (was tunnels as way to disambiguate .local)

2012-08-09 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 08/08/2012 19:52, Evan Hunt wrote: Except, of course, that it's not a DN at all: it's not a domain name. Also not qualified, as long as we're quibbling. But I do think the distinction between FQDN and thing we're talking about is a useful one to have terminology for, and LQDN does get

[homenet] referrals [ tunnels as way to disambiguate .local]

2012-08-09 Thread Brian E Carpenter
firewalls - router ACLs for example. Certainly NAT is the major cause today (and NPTv6 will propagate the problem into IPv6). v4-only and v6-only islands will probably arise too. Regards Brian On 08/08/2012 19:39, Curtis Villamizar wrote: In message 5022557f.5050...@gmail.com Brian E Carpenter writes

[homenet] Tunnels to home

2012-08-09 Thread Brian E Carpenter
All this talk about tunnels and names made me think that people might be interested in the Signpost project, mainly based at the Computer Lab in Cambridge where I am currently a visitor. I think this project is a proof of concept for ideas being discussed here.

Re: [homenet] tunnels as way to disambiguate .local

2012-08-08 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 07/08/2012 20:11, Michael Thomas wrote: On 08/07/2012 11:46 AM, Kerry Lynn wrote: On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Evan Hunt e...@isc.org wrote: Tunnels are okay, but to use them, but has to get the DNS search order and the DNS server list right, and that's walled garden territory. *If* we

Re: [homenet] section 3.2.2.1 of homenet-arch

2012-08-07 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 07/08/2012 16:39, Curtis Villamizar wrote: In message 501a502d.30...@gmail.com Brian E Carpenter writes: On 01/08/2012 15:39, Curtis Villamizar wrote: In message 5018dd8a.2070...@gmail.com Brian E Carpenter writes: Excuse front posting, but... Today there is no DHCP help

Re: [homenet] tunnels as way to disambiguate .local

2012-08-06 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 06/08/2012 04:28, Evan Hunt wrote: i wasn't able to participate in this discussion because I had other business during homenet, but I'm a bit frustrated by this conclusion. I was speaking for myself and I believe the issue is in flux; please don't take it as a conclusion. :) IMHO, we

Re: [homenet] tunnels as way to disambiguate .local

2012-08-05 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 05/08/2012 07:58, Ray Hunter wrote: I disagree. The context of my message is that there should be some identifier that can disambiguate the namespace per Homenet. That's what I meant too. The only point is to avoid ambiguity in the namespace. The only reason for using a ULA prefix to create

Re: [homenet] section 3.2.2.1 of homenet-arch

2012-08-02 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 01/08/2012 15:39, Curtis Villamizar wrote: In message 5018dd8a.2070...@gmail.com Brian E Carpenter writes: Excuse front posting, but... Today there is no DHCP help in avoiding the please reboot messages. Don't RECONFIGURE (DHCPv6) and FORCERENEW (DHCP) cover this, in theory

Re: [homenet] a modest proposal

2012-08-02 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 02/08/2012 06:58, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Curtis Villamizar wrote: Same answer as one given on that thread. If a device can support IPv4, then use NAT4. If a device can only support IPv6, then the DNS64 belongs on the IPv6-only device. To that device all host

Re: [homenet] tunnels as way to disambiguate .local

2012-08-01 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 01/08/2012 05:48, Curtis Villamizar wrote: ... fridge.sitelocal. is a FQDN with site local scope. And therefore intrinsically evil, just like 10.0.0.0/8 is intrinsically evil. IMHO we shouldn't be discussing how to make it work less badly; we should be discussing how to avoid it entirely.

Re: [homenet] section 3.2.2.1 of homenet-arch

2012-08-01 Thread Brian E Carpenter
/2012 04:33, Curtis Villamizar wrote: In message 50181a1c.5050...@gmail.com Brian E Carpenter writes: On 31/07/2012 17:59, Michael Richardson wrote: Brian == Brian E Carpenter Brian writes: I'm also surprised that we think we have to cope with flash renumbering as a regular event

Re: [homenet] section 3.2.2.1 of homenet-arch

2012-08-01 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 31/07/2012 19:23, Michael Richardson wrote: Brian == Brian E Carpenter Brian writes: Brian But every time you reboot your antiquated v4-only CPE and/or the antiquated Brian v4-only PCs behind it, the PCs all get new IP addresses, which may or Brian may not be the same

Re: [homenet] tunnels as way to disambiguate .local

2012-08-01 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Synthesise a pseudo-TLD from the ULA prefix. Brian On 01/08/2012 15:17, Curtis Villamizar wrote: In message 5018d80c.90...@gmail.com Brian E Carpenter writes: On 01/08/2012 05:48, Curtis Villamizar wrote: ... fridge.sitelocal. is a FQDN with site local scope. And therefore

Re: [homenet] section 3.2.2.1 of homenet-arch

2012-07-31 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 31/07/2012 00:06, Michael Richardson wrote: ... I'm also surprised that we think we have to cope with flash renumbering as a regular event, rather than a service-interrupting, ISP truck roll catastrophy. But every time you reboot your antiquated v4-only CPE and/or the antiquated v4-only

Re: [homenet] Name service design principles: a proposal

2012-07-10 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 10/07/2012 17:18, Michael Thomas wrote: ... Third, maybe we do not need more than one secure .local name server in a network that has more than one router. Seriously, I can see my neighbor's wifi, and I have access to his (guest) net. This problem is already here. .local is a problem in

Re: [homenet] Name service design principles: a proposal

2012-06-30 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 2012-06-29 19:19, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: ... b) Homenet name-service MUST NOT be in Internet name space. How are things in the home identified from outside the homenet? They will have to have two names one internal and one externally visible. Exactly. This has been standard practice

Re: [homenet] draft-gmann-homenet-relay-autoconf-

2012-05-08 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 2012-05-07 20:27, Michael Richardson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I read this document just now. What I understand is that level-2+ routers go to the ISP to get an additional /64. The ISP could return anything... it might be good if it returned a /64 adjacent

Re: [homenet] I have a problem

2012-05-08 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Can we either have a problem statement draft or declare this out of scope? IMHO it's a legitimate topic but probably one for later. Regards Brian On 2012-05-07 22:20, Dan Wing wrote: -Original Message- From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 11:51 AM

Re: [homenet] one IAB quotation on walled gardens

2012-03-31 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 2012-03-30 20:35, Michael Richardson wrote: Brian == Brian E Carpenter Brian writes: Brian Front posting: I think we are using walled garden to mean Brian several things and that is confusing. Brian In my mind it refers to a captive customer scenario where a Brian service

Re: [homenet] one IAB quotation on walled gardens

2012-03-29 Thread Brian E Carpenter
the Internet by a security fence of some kind and may also need a local namespace. I thought that was normally called an intranet. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2012-03-30 00:48, Michael Richardson wrote: Brian == Brian E Carpenter Brian writes: I much prefer to engineer for walled gardens using

Re: [homenet] one IAB quotation on walled gardens

2012-03-28 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 2012-03-29 01:01, Michael Richardson wrote: Erik == Erik Kline e...@google.com writes: Erik Mark, Erik For the record, the walled garden citation I quoted was from: Erik http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3002#section-4.2 yes, I found it during the meeting. I think you

[homenet] Prefix length [ I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-arch-02.txt]

2012-03-27 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 2012-03-27 20:59, Aamer Akhter (aakhter) wrote: ... Sec 3.4.11 The home network may receive an arbitrary length IPv6 prefix from its provider, e.g. /60 or /56. The offered prefix may be stable over time or change from time to time. It is unclear if only the prefix, or also the

Re: [homenet] #4: Use of ULAs

2012-03-27 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Dave, On 2012-03-28 09:28, Dave Taht wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-22 12:33, homenet issue tracker wrote: #4: Use of ULAs CN1 in the -02 text says ULAs should be provisioned by default. Do we agree? Yes

Re: [homenet] #6: Support for arbitrary topologies

2012-03-22 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 2012-03-22 12:37, homenet issue tracker wrote: #6: Support for arbitrary topologies We currently state that homenets should support arbitrary topologies (SD1). There have been some comments that this might not be realistic. Should we continue to shoot for that? The users will create

<    1   2   3   >