Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

octobre 2019 15:39 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) Cc: Michael Richardson ; 6MAN <6...@ietf.org>; homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices... On Oct 7, 2019, at 10:58 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) mailto:pthub...@cisco.com>> wrote: As you indica

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 7, 2019, at 10:58 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > As you indicate, a single mesh can approach 10^4. A depth can be al lot more > than the 10 hops that we imagined initially. Yet it keeps working. How frequently do things change in the mesh? Does this require any management to

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On 07-Oct-19 22:49, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Mark Smith wrote: > > Perhaps ANIMA is an alternative? It has seemed to me that home networks > > might be just a more specific case of autonomic networks. > > > For example, they've been defining a Generic Autonomic Signalling >

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 7, 2019, at 10:16 AM, RayH wrote: > If the ISP is on the hook for support, then “their network” includes your > home network. > What I mean is that the ISP gets phone calls from customers whether it’s their fault the network is broken or not. So they aren’t going out of their way to

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On 7 Oct 2019 17:03, Ted Lemon wrote:On Oct 7, 2019, at 10:00 AM, RayH wrote:Why does an ISP have to add complexity to their network in order to support Homenet?If the ISP is on the hook for support, then “their network” includes your home network.If that's their business

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 7, 2019, at 10:00 AM, RayH wrote: > Why does an ISP have to add complexity to their network in order to support > Homenet? If the ISP is on the hook for support, then “their network” includes your home network. ___ homenet mailing list

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On 7 Oct 2019 16:37, Ted Lemon wrote:On Oct 7, 2019, at 9:15 AM, RayH wrote:My preferred path would be to look at why Homenet hasn't been rolled out.If it's because manufacturers aren't updating boxes at all, or even ipv6 at all as per my local internet non-service provider,

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

. Cheers, Pascal -Original Message- From: ipv6 On Behalf Of Michael Richardson Sent: lundi 7 octobre 2019 16:41 To: 6MAN <6...@ietf.org>; homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices... Ted Lemon wrote: >> Too bad then... I still fai

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

. Cheers, Pascal From: ipv6 On Behalf Of Ted Lemon Sent: lundi 7 octobre 2019 16:37 To: RayH Cc: Michael Richardson ; Markus Stenberg ; 6MAN <6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices... On Oct 7, 2019, at 9:15 AM, RayH mailto:v6...@globis.net>>

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

t;6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices... On Oct 7, 2019, at 3:37 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) mailto:pthub...@cisco.com>> wrote: Too bad then... I still fail to see why the model cannot be generalized to more powerful nodes. Because it is maxim

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 7, 2019, at 9:15 AM, RayH wrote: > My preferred path would be to look at why Homenet hasn't been rolled out. > > If it's because manufacturers aren't updating boxes at all, or even ipv6 at > all as per my local internet non-service provider, another standard ain't > going to solve that.

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On 7 Oct 2019 15:47, Michael Richardson wrote: Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:     >> The deployment challenge of that is that every router must support HNCP and     >> must support SADR.     > Yes, there is indeed a problem here with incremental deployment.     > That's why I think there

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> The deployment challenge of that is that every router must support HNCP and >> must support SADR. > Yes, there is indeed a problem here with incremental deployment. > That's why I think there might be upside in "homenet lite" which drops the >

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Le 07/10/2019 à 15:25, Ted Lemon a écrit : On Oct 7, 2019, at 2:33 AM, Alexandre Petrescu mailto:alexandre.petre...@gmail.com>> wrote: If somebody makes a good solution and easily deployed for the topology in the above figure, then I am willing to consider it for vehicular networks as well.  

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 7, 2019, at 3:37 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Too bad then... I still fail to see why the model cannot be generalized to > more powerful nodes. Because it is maximally complex? :] You say that RPL has scaled to millions of nodes. Where is this deployed in production?

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 7, 2019, at 2:33 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote: > If somebody makes a good solution and easily deployed for the topology > in the above figure, then I am willing to consider it for vehicular > networks as well. In them, the CE Router is a Mobile Router in the car > and the Internal Router

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 6, 2019, at 11:36 PM, Ole Troan wrote: > I believe HNCP has solved the technical problem it set out to do. Allow for > an automatically configured, arbitrary topology network with multiple exits. > The deployment challenge of that is that every router must support HNCP and > must support

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Mark Smith wrote: > Perhaps ANIMA is an alternative? It has seemed to me that home networks > might be just a more specific case of autonomic networks. > For example, they've been defining a Generic Autonomic Signalling > Protocol (GRASP). GRASP has some overlap with HNCP, but

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Hello Ole and Ted: > >>> Sounds like you need to set it up as a NAT. >> >> I really hope you are just making a funny joke here. But it’s not very >> funny. What I want is something that’s operationally simple, not something >> with lots of moving parts that have to be kept track of.

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Ole Troan wrote: The deployment challenge of that is that every router must support HNCP and must support SADR. Yes, there is indeed a problem here with incremental deployment. That's why I think there might be upside in "homenet lite" which drops the arbitrary topology

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Le 04/10/2019 à 02:39, Ted Lemon a écrit : (If you got this as a Bcc, it’s because I am hoping you can contribute to the discussion, but might not be on the mailing list to which I sent the question, so please answer on-list if you are willing.) I’ve been involved in some discussions

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Le 07/10/2019 à 06:05, Gyan Mishra a écrit : [...] For IPv4 in general across the board all broadband routers openWrt or otherwise pnp setup have a dhcp wan IP and LAN side is RFC 1918 192.xx and nat overload is done from inside to outside. Pretty basic and it works well. For IPv6 we have the

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

In-line Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 7, 2019, at 2:47 AM, Gyan Mishra wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Oct 7, 2019, at 12:10 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> >> What you’ve proposed doesn’t seem like it would make things better. 7084 >> give us working ipv6 on the home network. What

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 7, 2019, at 12:10 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > What you’ve proposed doesn’t seem like it would make things better. 7084 give > us working ipv6 on the home network. What you’re proposing would take that > away. Let’s not go in that direction. > [Gyan] Understood. I

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Hi Ted, >> Are you saying there might be gaps in HNCP? Or things we could do to make it >> more deployable? >> If it's just a matter of running code missing, I'm not sure defining >> anything else new in the IETF would help that problem. > > There are definitely missing features from the

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

What you’ve proposed doesn’t seem like it would make things better. 7084 give us working ipv6 on the home network. What you’re proposing would take that away. Let’s not go in that direction. > On Oct 6, 2019, at 23:05, Gyan Mishra wrote: > ___

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

In line Thanks Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 6, 2019, at 6:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > >> On 07-Oct-19 11:34, Mark Smith wrote: >> Perhaps ANIMA is an alternative? It has seemed to me that home networks >> might be just a more specific case of autonomic networks. > > ...for

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 6, 2019, at 17:46, Michael Thomas wrote: > If the protocol is not truly plug and play in reality... wasn't that the > entire premise? That doesn't sound like an ops problem. I understand that > openwrt is a wonk box, but still if there isn't default configuration that > would make it

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On 07-Oct-19 11:34, Mark Smith wrote: > Perhaps ANIMA is an alternative? It has seemed to me that home networks might > be just a more specific case of autonomic networks. ...for professionally managed networks. So there would be new work to do, if we wanted to expand the scope. > > For

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On 10/6/19 2:41 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Oct 6, 2019, at 10:58 AM, Ole Troan > wrote: Are you saying there might be gaps in HNCP? Or things we could do to make it more deployable? If it's just a matter of running code missing, I'm not sure defining anything else new

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Perhaps ANIMA is an alternative? It has seemed to me that home networks might be just a more specific case of autonomic networks. For example, they've been defining a Generic Autonomic Signalling Protocol (GRASP). https://tools.ietf.org/wg/anima/ Brian Carpenter has been working on an

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Homenet has solved the problem of self-configuring networks in arbitrary topologies. >>> >>> If that were true, I wouldn’t be asking this question. We’re still >>> chugging along, but we don’t have something that nay router vender could >>> even consider shipping right now. There

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 4, 2019, at 6:28 AM, Ole Troan wrote: >>> Homenet has solved the problem of self-configuring networks in arbitrary >>> topologies. >> >> If that were true, I wouldn’t be asking this question. We’re still chugging >> along, but we don’t have something that nay router vender could even

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Ted, >> Homenet has solved the problem of self-configuring networks in arbitrary >> topologies. > > If that were true, I wouldn’t be asking this question. We’re still chugging > along, but we don’t have something that nay router vender could even consider > shipping right now. There isn’t

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 4, 2019, at 5:10 AM, Ole Troan wrote: > Homenet has solved the problem of self-configuring networks in arbitrary > topologies. If that were true, I wouldn’t be asking this question. We’re still chugging along, but we don’t have something that nay router vender could even consider

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Mikael, >> RFC7084 does not have any support for internal routers. > > While this is true, OpenWrt does support DHCPv6-PD within the home, out of > the box. I also have a report of AVN Fritzbox supporting sub-PD without > additional configuration. > > In all devices I've looked at the WAN is

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Hi Ted, For the testing that we have conducted at the lab, must typical CE Router don't support DHCPv6 PD on the LAN as Ole pointed out. There are a couple that have this as an additional feature. I'm not aware of RA-Guard or Layer-2 filtering being placed on Ethernet networks and haven't

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Ted Lemon wrote: > I’ve been involved in some discussions recently where the question has > come up: how good is support for RFC7084 in shipping routers? And > what gaps exist in RFC7084 that could cause problems? And in cases > where RFC7084 support either isn’t present, or

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, Ole Troan wrote: Ted, [top posting] RFC7084 does not have any support for internal routers. While this is true, OpenWrt does support DHCPv6-PD within the home, out of the box. I also have a report of AVN Fritzbox supporting sub-PD without additional configuration. In

Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Ted, [top posting] RFC7084 does not have any support for internal routers. Futher: It might just be the way you describe the use cases, there seems to be a misconception about how routers work with regards to ND “advertisements”. ND is not a routing protocol. Hierarchical PD which you also

[homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

(If you got this as a Bcc, it’s because I am hoping you can contribute to the discussion, but might not be on the mailing list to which I sent the question, so please answer on-list if you are willing.) I’ve been involved in some discussions recently where the question has come up: how good is