Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Michael Richardson wrote: > There is significant effort to isolate IoT devices on seperate L2s via > what in the enterprise switch space is called MAC-based-VLANs. The > only devices that "move" in such a network are the laptops and mobile > phones, and both could easily take on

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Thanks Michael, More such input is very welcome! As chairs we'll try ask again in a bit, but it'll be the same questions basically so answering now is just as good:-) On 23/04/2019 22:40, Michael Richardson wrote: > I think that perhaps the naming work could move to DNSSD WG if closing down >

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Stephen Farrell wrote: > (5) it's fine stuff, but IMO not going to be used, so > there's not much point in producing RFCs > (6) not sure at the moment, > maybe the WG should go quiescent for a while 'till we know more After having various homenet threads in my inbox for 6

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >> PIE [...] lends itself better for implementation in existing hardware, >> or hardware with small modification. > > Could one of you please explain why? With the caveat that I have never worked with any of this hardware, this is my understanding: Basically, you can

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: PIE [...] lends itself better for implementation in existing hardware, or hardware with small modification. Could one of you please explain why? Packet accelerators work either by completely autonomously forwarding packet without CPU

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

> PIE [...] lends itself better for implementation in existing hardware, > or hardware with small modification. Could one of you please explain why? ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Mikael Abrahamsson writes: > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > >> You're right that packet accelerators complicate things a bit. I'm not >> entirely convinced that the "doesn't lend itself to FQ-CoDel and the >> rest of the mechanisms the bufferbloat movement has gravitated

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: You're right that packet accelerators complicate things a bit. I'm not entirely convinced that the "doesn't lend itself to FQ-CoDel and the rest of the mechanisms the bufferbloat movement has gravitated towards" actually *has* to be true, but

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Mikael Abrahamsson writes: > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > >> Since you seem to be pretty up to date on the ISP-level CPE offerings, >> just out of curiosity: Do any of these fancy ARM boxes include actual >> fixes for bufferbloat? :) > > Short answer, no. > >

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: Since you seem to be pretty up to date on the ISP-level CPE offerings, just out of curiosity: Do any of these fancy ARM boxes include actual fixes for bufferbloat? :) Short answer, no. Bufferbloat isn't on the radar of any product managers

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Mikael Abrahamsson writes: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> For the last 10 to 15 years the ISP-provided home router has come to >> dominate the market, with the belief by the ISPs that this is a MUST >> that they control the device. Many (but not all) at the IETF do not >>

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019, Michael Richardson wrote: For the last 10 to 15 years the ISP-provided home router has come to dominate the market, with the belief by the ISPs that this is a MUST that they control the device. Many (but not all) at the IETF do not share this view, but most non-technical

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

On Mar 8, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek mailto:j...@irif.fr>> wrote: >> (a) work on simple naming > > I think that this work should be stalled until we have an implementation > to play with and make some in vivo experiments. (Experience shows that > the best way to break a protocol is to

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

On Mar 8, 2019, at 8:36 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > I think this protocol has reached the point where any further paper work > will be counter-productive until somebody tries their hand at implementing > it. Which protocol? ___ homenet mailing

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

>> I think that this work should be stalled until we have an implementation >> to play with and make some in vivo experiments. > I'm not sure if by "stalled" you mean sticking with the plan above, or > something else I'm concerned about two things: - if you're not implementing yourself,

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Hiya, Given the level of list inactivity, it's actually really helpful that you took the time to re-tx those points! One clarifying question below... On 08/03/2019 12:48, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > Sorry if I'm repeating myself -- I've already expressed the opinions > below,

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Hi Stephen, Sorry if I'm repeating myself -- I've already expressed the opinions below, both at the mike and on the list. > (a) work on simple naming I think that this work should be stalled until we have an implementation to play with and make some in vivo experiments. (Experience shows that

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Hi all, We'd really appreciate more feedback on this topic, so could you please take a few minutes to give us some more guidance on where you want to see the work go from here... Thanks, S. On 01/03/2019 21:21, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Dear WG, > > At IETF-103 Ted lead a good discussion of

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

> Both HNCP and Babel carry their control traffic over link-local IPv6, but > they support both IPv4 and IPv6 with almost equal functionality. > (The only significant difference is the treatment of border routers, which > are assumed to be doing NAT in IPv4 and stateless routing

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

> I do remember that talk. CS grad students are not our target market. First year undergrad, Ted. Eighteen year-old lass with no previous networking experience. -- Juliusz ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

I do remember that talk. CS grad students are not our target market. Open source distributions are a great demo, but I want this stuff in Ubiquiti routers, Eero routers, etc. it’s clear you aren’t interested in working on it at the Hackathon, which is perfectly understandable, but I was asking if

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

>> It should be an easy fix, feel free to go ahead. > The point of soliciting participation at hackathon is for us to gain > collective experience on the easy or difficulty of deploying homenet in > practice. Oh, that's different, and not at all the motivation you give in your previous mail.

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

>> Both HNCP and Babel carry their control traffic over link-local IPv6, but >> they support both IPv4 and IPv6 with almost equal functionality. >> >> (The only significant difference is the treatment of border routers, which >> are assumed to be doing NAT in IPv4 and stateless routing in IPv6.)

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

On Mar 2, 2019, at 8:50 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > That's an property of the hnetd implementation, not a feature of the > protocol (and it doesn't apply to shncpd). See RFC 7788 Section 6.5. The text: An HNCP router MUST create a private IPv4 prefix [RFC1918

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

> Both HNCP and Babel carry their control traffic over link-local IPv6, but > they support both IPv4 and IPv6 with almost equal functionality. > in fact while what you are saying is technically true, in practice IPv4 > _is_ treated like a second-class citizen in the sense that if your >

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

... if your ISP-provided public IP address ever goes away, all of your RFC1918 addresses on the homenet also go away. Not in any router I’ve ever had a hand in specifying or procuring! And not true of my Netgear router, or any of my older Linksys routers. Or OpenWRT loaded routers. My RFC1918

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

> For the last 10 to 15 years the ISP-provided home router has come to > dominate the market, with the belief by the ISPs that this is a MUST that they > control the device. Many (but not all) at the IETF do not share this view, > but > most non-technical users see the ISP provided router is

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Ralf Weber wrote: > Moin! > On 2 Mar 2019, at 1:14, Michael Richardson wrote: >> I personally do not believe that Home Router firmware update practices have >> significantly improved. I would welcome more recent data: is anyone >> collecting this on a regular basis? I

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

On 3/2/19 8:30 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: What I meant is that homenet router protocols are v6 only. No, they're not. Both HNCP and Babel carry their control traffic over link-local IPv6, but they support both IPv4 and IPv6 with almost equal functionality. (The only significant

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

On Mar 2, 2019, at 11:30 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > No, they're not. > > Both HNCP and Babel carry their control traffic over link-local IPv6, but > they support both IPv4 and IPv6 with almost equal functionality. This is one of the reasons that I would like us to get together and hack on

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

> What I meant is that homenet router protocols are v6 only. No, they're not. Both HNCP and Babel carry their control traffic over link-local IPv6, but they support both IPv4 and IPv6 with almost equal functionality. (The only significant difference is the treatment of border routers, which are

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Moin! On 2 Mar 2019, at 1:14, Michael Richardson wrote: I personally do not believe that Home Router firmware update practices have significantly improved. I would welcome more recent data: is anyone collecting this on a regular basis? I suspect that 90% of firmware updates occur because

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

> > But Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) has been working to provide a solution for > seamless whole home coverage. And from what I can see, I think it's going to > be successful. But WFA EasyMesh (release 1) is a tree-topology L2 bridged > network. I do think this needs to move towards true mesh (and the

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

On 3/1/19 4:14 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: When we started this effort we heard of real situations such as Fred's original FUN BOF slides on how dual-geek households are forced not to share printers due to corporate home firewall requirements. And that we should expect the situation to get

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Michael Thomas wrote: > I would guess that even after 5 years, we still don't have much v6 > deployment > into homes and that's a pretty big problem. Router vendors are not much > motivated by that which doesn't have a market. Cable ISPs in north america (Rogers, Comcast) seem

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

On 3/1/19 3:49 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: I would guess that even after 5 years, we still don't have much v6 deployment into homes and that's a pretty big problem. That's an interesting statement to make. Do you have evidence of that? https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ shows

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

> I would guess that even after 5 years, we still don't have much > v6 deployment into homes and that's a pretty big problem. That's an interesting statement to make. Do you have evidence of that? https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ shows considerable deployment. I know for a fact

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

On 3/1/19 2:25 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Mar 1, 2019, at 4:21 PM, Stephen Farrell > wrote: If one of those positions captures your opinion, feel free to respond in shorthand. Otherwise, please tell us where you think we ought be going, as a WG, with (a), (b)

Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

On Mar 1, 2019, at 4:21 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > If one of those positions captures your opinion, feel free to respond > in shorthand. Otherwise, please tell us where you think we ought be > going, as a WG, with (a), (b) and/or (c). For me it’s (1) and (2). I think there are a few reasons

[homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Dear WG, At IETF-103 Ted lead a good discussion of where we're at and where we and others in the homenet space may be heading. One key aspect of that discussion is that we might (or might not) be working on specs that have been overtaken by events e.g. in the sense that perhaps there are now