Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

Kenneth Voort <listbounce-01@voort.ca> Sun, 03 July 2011 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <listbounce-01@voort.ca>
X-Original-To: fun@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: fun@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E4F22801C for <fun@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 13:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xpQBZt0AiblA for <fun@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 13:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720AA22801B for <fun@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 13:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iye7 with SMTP id 7so4972478iye.31 for <fun@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 13:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.161.70 with SMTP id s6mr6190625icx.374.1309724974248; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 13:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Kens-MacBook-Pro.local (76-10-173-233.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.173.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id my4sm3158259ibb.3.2011.07.03.13.29.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 03 Jul 2011 13:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E10D11D.3090501@voort.ca>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 16:29:17 -0400
From: Kenneth Voort <listbounce-01@voort.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: fun@ietf.org
References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106300707370.19581@uplift.swm.pp.se> <4E0C1CF8.7090601@gont.com.ar> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106300923280.19581@uplift.swm.pp.se> <558D0669-8B2A-4514-B3FB-C690C40A4EF8@townsley.net> <4E0E282B.1060400@voort.ca> <4E0E2A75.6040207@dougbarton.us> <F863D9FD-5A5F-4E6C-88D3-E0F941D79622@network-heretics.com> <4E0FC683.6020900@dougbarton.us>
In-Reply-To: <4E0FC683.6020900@dougbarton.us>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Subject: Re: [fun] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal
X-BeenThere: fun@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "FUture home Networking \(FUN\)" <fun.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/fun>, <mailto:fun-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fun>
List-Post: <mailto:fun@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fun-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun>, <mailto:fun-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 20:29:36 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11-07-02 9:31 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/01/2011 14:17, Keith Moore wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>>> This is an area that we very clearly do not need to get involved in
>>> because it will solve itself due to market forces. Right now there
>>> is no IPv6-only content that anyone cares about. When that changes,
>>> users will start demanding that their provider give them access to
>>> it, or vote with their feet.
When that happens, the end-to-end (or perhaps site-to-site) model of the Internet will be broken. I
would argue that the Internet is more about "reachability" than "content" or "conversation". When
the day comes when it is no longer technically possible to reach any Internet-connected host who
wants me to reach it, from anywhere, the Internet will be broken. While IPv6 has the promise to fix
a great many things, it also carries with it the threat of breaking that fundamental assumption upon
which the Internet is built.

>> Whenever people talk about the Internet as if it were just about
>> "access to content", I have to wonder.    The Internet has always
>> been more about conversation than content.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of Internet users are consumers of content. Some of that content is stuff
> like Skype, instant messaging, etc.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of businesses that make the Internet work are the content providers, and
> the ISPs that enable the consumers of that content to reach it.
> 
> Failure to recognize these 2 critical facts leads to producing standards documents that have no
> relevance in the real world.

I agree with you to a point. Where I see a problem is in *new* content producers coming online. It's
not possible anymore for there to be another service provider such as YouTube or Netflix, or for
that matter another ISP like Comcast or BT, with the IPv4 space there is left. Until and unless we
see massive IPv6 deployment we're stuck with the players we've got. Nobody's going to build another
Netflix and just wait for the ISP's to get the users to them. The transition should be engineered,
not simply left to existing market forces to evolve.
> 
>>> To summarize my main point once again, there is nothing for the
>>> IETF to do here, the problem will take care of itself.
>>
>> Quite the contrary.  We still don't have a good transition mechanism
>> that HOMENET could specify.
> 
> And as I pointed out in the bits of my message that you snipped, we don't need one.
> 
> 
> Doug

Perhaps, perhaps not. But I do think the behavior of an IPv6 network/host/CPE in the absence of IPv6
connectivity, or where not all of [more than one] providers is IPv6, should be defined, at the
least. We will otherwise see some surely unpredictable and incompatible behavior. Should it be
assumed that the only IPv6 provider must therefore be the default IPv6 route? What if that provider
is the power company? Or should a default IPv6 route *always* be established via the same interface
as the default IPv4 route? Should home networks establish IPv6 connectivity where none exists?

I would also argue that some method of reaching the IPv6 Internet without provider-supplied IPv6
should be considered and/or recommended. Is it within HOMENET's scope to /encourage/ IPv6
deployment, or merely /facilitate/ it?

We agree that there will be a day when not every host on the Internet will be reachable from every
other host. I think what we disagree on is the scope and severity of the problem, and when it will
happen. It is my hope that most people never hear the term "IPv6".

- -- 
Kenneth Voort - kenneth {at} voort <SPAMGUARD> {dot} ca
FDF1 6265 EBAB C05C FD06 1AED 158E 14D6 37CD E87F | pgp encrypted email preferred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAk4Q0R0ACgkQFY4U1jfN6H/6pwCfePQLx1r9j7bQsCw8iK2aTGM7
sEsAni5VvOMZIPyJHqMWUr/Gba4vHzOq
=fq54
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----