Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Thu, 30 June 2011 06:51 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: homegate@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homegate@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1440D11E8144; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.04
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.04 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.559, 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 CJFwMd-Gqvcr; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 129C311E813B; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywp31 with SMTP id 31so984661ywp.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/0R3YYGmnJ6Lyflfku3ISMCbOSDFXOXl9MZ4HOpp3WU=; b=xADfpU0trLhwnwW5kVQoQ+rTN/eaStuQpFgMfEm4pmfQRNbN2WdfNmYLddJy2e9R2Q V86/HOgP03jOfXzBvhT3RjPLkuNXLnzMpgs6dCyTKm8sh6nGCZ39VfyrshCEp0rucNQM G5zjyenb7T3I6irYs9DFuKq6LPY3cl/g82PPA=
Received: by 10.91.149.5 with SMTP id b5mr1511370ago.91.1309416716566; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.123.103] ([190.48.246.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v9sm1752067anv.4.2011.06.29.23.51.49 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Fernando Gont <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4E0C1CF8.7090601@gont.com.ar>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:51:36 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110516 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106300707370.19581@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106300707370.19581@uplift.swm.pp.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "homegate@ietf.org" <homegate@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal
X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion <homegate.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homegate>, <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homegate>
List-Post: <mailto:homegate@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate>, <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 06:51:58 -0000

On 06/30/2011 02:12 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> My high level comment/question is: the proposed charter seems to
>> stress that IPv6 is the driver behind this potential wg effort...
>> however, I think that this deserves more discussion -- it's not clear
>> to me why/how typical IPv6 home networks would be much different from
>> their IPv4 counterparts.
> 
> In my mind, I see the possibility of /56 PD enabling different subnets
> for different kinds of devices with different security and functional
> needs, and also chaining of L3 devices. This definitely warrants a group
> to look at that.

My point was that, except for the mechanism for PD, I don't see a
substantial difference here that would e.g. prevent this from being
developed for IPv4 (in addition to IPv6). -- Yes, I know we need to
deploy IPv6... but I don't think you can expect people to get rid of
their *working* IPv4 devices... (i.e., not sure why any of this
functionality should be v6-only)


>> One would hope/expect that the former will be gone with IPv6. However,
>> I don't think the latter will. As a result, even when you could
>> "address" nodes that belong to the "home network", you probably won't
>> be able to get your packets to them, unless those nodes initiated the
>> communication instance.
> 
> This is exactly why the whole "system" needs to work, including uPNP
> like functionality for nodes to talk to the firewall(s).

I think this deserves a problem statement that clearly describes what we
expect to be able to do (but currently can't), etc. And, if this is
meant to be v6-only, state why v4 is excluded -- unless we're happy to
have people connect their IPv4-devices, and see that they cannot
communicate anymore.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1