Re: [Casm] [Anima] [homenet] prefix assignment

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 29 March 2017 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: casm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: casm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73564129631; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xq7zwxoZaaKl; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x241.google.com (mail-it0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64F7F129572; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x241.google.com with SMTP id 190so11422060itm.3; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cTFHsouxE3/yMR/FXksA1Btsf0Q1oZje3k8oykMT7x4=; b=gEtx2tnxJtPuzaRKjRYNT25gm+dgypFrn7KBO2sOl5yn/dIRX36L4j5vHqOTwkmAJV P5/609heesE913NhtOmXCAvW081CEqdauQM8eC5Vm2w73cwyhc7GrD5owFzlE+ifq07+ 9DEgYmbnKuanhFp4ZtO/eEdbzjCwx2M3OwIorFHNJCcLK8y8ZXtbueUF0Kid4NsaLGdf Zslw8mD3ZaVaQdYWilx8Tt+1vnW5FrlJKC5CDqiz/jM+ohFs2rP3rfiwyL7oUWBHv3/T LsbHhJFaJ7Qxu2RWgJhDekmtAL8t10afXPj9XFdNHY+ciDpzlaCO4ilvxMcJgJSl4jPk fT+Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cTFHsouxE3/yMR/FXksA1Btsf0Q1oZje3k8oykMT7x4=; b=WeeUppyXueSkeN+z8lmFmQywwCZ4l9wYKzG009lw+6V7dQ9Clw3EC+Eb+g7iquUMKY O8EdgTqy5XjF2y/IUNMMyM5FcfW072f8EqpR+tPhRwC8NXUq8XeA/loUSD1+BGuiqZPA utVel1RFN5hNQWGi42FSfFvIaAsPmaSDNtjB8fML5qv2/yRcMCIMhQhHtqgv/V7vGkra PK6NsMbdCQfHWzoYP0HwQhgXNBtnWX3SRuGuR4Dw8kvNtyJxYUpkyzb3MrIn0XcdBCav 40PdOIoV4z0EhgtebWsUWqkukZe/5d8gD74rHEkYeWEmlFRb4zME7ArzrpJYIE0r451Y 0xRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2bIBnMFYff0+cj/rDBxCBAc+Wca+KImhkw/HQQVRDOFHJoCosmpegxrRil6MqG6Q==
X-Received: by 10.36.87.15 with SMTP id u15mr1091888ita.58.1490828689611; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? (t2001067c0370012828ccdc4c97036781.v6.meeting.ietf.org. [2001:67c:370:128:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b126sm410720ioa.55.2017.03.29.16.04.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Mark Townsley (townsley)" <townsley@cisco.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
References: <21984.1490644275@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CANMVOuzYpcBdG2ZOhEXRnQU0Q=_i0i-09SPKzruJnznVoWW=OA@mail.gmail.com> <9240.1490649148@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <672bec4c-0e93-362c-21bf-99938cd0a066@gmail.com> <27800.1490654163@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <27680a33-708d-84b7-f378-3a47ee71840a@gmail.com> <2491.1490716597@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <5a41375c-2a4c-d5ca-e703-06d8e76f8728@gmail.com> <28218.1490799848@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <4C898133-C860-4369-8BDC-E5868CA70EB9@cisco.com>
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, "casm@ietf.org" <casm@ietf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <ec7c1878-0f6d-9f46-dacd-ed1aafd333b0@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:04:54 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4C898133-C860-4369-8BDC-E5868CA70EB9@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/casm/ogAOt1pSa6nNhJ9D05wG0M785ys>
Subject: Re: [Casm] [Anima] [homenet] prefix assignment
X-BeenThere: casm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Coordinated Address Space Management <casm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/casm>, <mailto:casm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/casm/>
List-Post: <mailto:casm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:casm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm>, <mailto:casm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 23:04:52 -0000

On 30/03/2017 11:14, Mark Townsley (townsley) wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 29, 2017, at 10:04 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> This discussion started in a private thread, so I'll try to bring people
>> up-to-date by repeating and moving around text.
>>
>> The ANIMA GRASP reference problem Autonomic Service Agent (ASA), is
>> to do distributed prefix allocation.  This is very much in the space of
>> *coordinated* address management.
>>
>> (My take, BTW, is that CASM should be considered the first spin-off WG
>> From ANIMA...)
>>
>> Mark and Brian discussed how HNCP does prefix distribution within Homenet.
> 
> I was really pointing out that RFC 7695 could be used independent of HNCP. 
> 
> HNCP is just one protocol that uses the RFC 7695 distributed prefix assignment algorithm (which actually began as extensions to OSPF before HNCP even existed).

True. And I don't see any reason why a CASM system including autonomic service
agents shouldn't be used to supply prefixes for use by an RFC7695 implementation.
So the various tools can fit together.

    Brian
> 
> - Mark
> 
>>
>> Brian then suggests:
>>
>>  brian> But if the CE includes a little autonomic service agent (ASA) which
>>  brian> is in the ISP's security domain (not the SOHO domain), it can act for
>>  brian> HNCP to solicit address space from the ISP. That's the southern side
>>  brian> of the CASM model and the northern side of HNCP.
>>
>> I asked a simple question: don't we have DHCPv6 for this?
>>
>> I also then asked:
>>
>>> a) the CPE device is now part of the ISP's ACP.
>>> That's okay if the CPE device is owned by the ISP and/or the CPE device
>>> includes some kind of trusted computation environment.
>>> {But a CPE owned by the ISP, might not be trusted by the home owner,
>>> so another router in between would be needed,
>>
>> Brian answered:
>>> Really? Why not?
>>
>> I don't think that the ISP can trust to have code controlled by end users
>> running in their ACP domain.
>>
>> I also think that many end-users will be quite reasonably upset that their
>> ISPs can snoop on their internal traffic.  This may in fact violate many
>> work-at-home agreements; which is often the case of why you see multiple
>> routers/firewalls in documents like
>>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-baker-fun-multi-router.
>>
>> (Fred had more interesting diagrams in presentations, which I could dig up)
>>
>>>> b) DHCPv6 PD is already the protocol that solves prefix allocation across
>>>> trust boundaries.
>>
>>> Indeed. That's why we have "PD supported"  as a Boolean property of the
>>> PrefixManager objective. There's no intention to undermine PD.
>>
>> Why do I need to run a protocol in order to find if I can run a protocol,
>> when DHCP has the same mechanism already.  And use of DHCPv6 itself is well
>> defined in cable and DSL connections already.
>>
>>>> I would think that the ISP's DSLAM/BMS/CMTS would have an ASA that deals with
>>>> prefixes.  It would speak DHCPv6-PD to the south, and GRASP/ASA to the north.
>>
>>> Yes, the DSLAM is definitely a good place to put one.
>>
>>
>>>> North of the ISP's device would be the ISP's (distributed) IPAM.
>>>> GRASP/ASA-Prefix would be the protocol between.
>>
>>> Anyway, my point is that these approaches (ANIMA, HNCP and PD) are
>>> complementary not competitors.
>>
>> I don't see you saying that.
>>
>> I see ou trying to extend two internal mechanisms (ANIMA in the ISP, and HNCP
>> in the home) such that they interact directly, rather than using PD.  You
>> say this right here:
>>
>>  brian> But if the CE includes a little autonomic service agent (ASA) which
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> homenet mailing list
>> homenet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>