Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

"Stephen [kiwin] PALM" <palm@broadcom.com> Thu, 30 June 2011 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <palm@broadcom.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 B388B11E8091; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 1DwscrhRJezS; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mms1.broadcom.com (mms1.broadcom.com [216.31.210.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5964C22800E; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.9.200.131] by mms1.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:46:16 -0700
X-Server-Uuid: 02CED230-5797-4B57-9875-D5D2FEE4708A
Received: from mail-irva-13.broadcom.com (10.11.16.103) by IRVEXCHHUB01.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.9.200.131) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.247.2; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:41:22 -0700
Received: from [10.9.254.251] (unknown [10.9.254.251]) by mail-irva-13.broadcom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D982B74D04; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E0C8B11.3070609@broadcom.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:41:21 -0700
From: "Stephen [kiwin] PALM" <palm@broadcom.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Fernando Gont" <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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>
In-Reply-To: <4E0C1CF8.7090601@gont.com.ar>
X-WSS-ID: 621253B23B411813245-01-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, fun@ietf.org, "homegate@ietf.org" <homegate@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 14:41:40 -0000

Agreed. I would phrase it this way:
How to do IPv6 in an IPv4 world.

Some points from the Description:
  > o Service providers are deploying IPv6, and support for IPv6 is
  > increasingly available in home gateway devices.

This is only *part* of the story.  *Users* have lots of IPv4
devices in their home.

  > o service discovery
This is already well handled by UPnP/DLNA

  > o managing routing

There were several snippets regarding routing/subnets/heterogeneous networking
technologies.  There is already work proceeding in IEEE P1905.1
to address issues related to multiple network technologies
via a MAC/PHY Abstraction Layer.  Also there are applications today
that expect a single subnet, so new architectures should not preclude
existing applications.

regards, kiwin

On 6/29/2011 11:51 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> 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,

-- 
Stephen [kiwin] Palm   Ph.D.                          E:  palm@kiwin.com
Senior Technical Director                             T: +1-949-926-PALM
Broadcom Broadband Communications Group               F: +1-949-926-7256
Irvine, California                               W: http://www.kiwin.com
Secondary email accounts:  stephenpalm@alumni.uci.edu  palm@broadcom.com
s.palm@ieee.org  palm@itu.ch  spalm@cs.cmu.edu  palm@ics.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp