Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 30 June 2011 05:12 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 C4DE911E80C8; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:12:21 -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 4hpLWTbUTFH6; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC12911E8128; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5E7509C; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:12:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B39D9A; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:12:18 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:12:18 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1106300707370.19581@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
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 05:12:22 -0000

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Fernando Gont 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.

A more routed home instead of pure L2 one.

> 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 personally consider this property of "end-to-end connectivity" as 
> "gone". -- among other reasons, because it would require a change of 
> mindset. I'm more of the idea that people will replicate the 
> architecture of their IPv4 networks with IPv6, in which end-systems are 
> not reachable from the public Internet.

I think this will also change, but not for all devices from all of the 
Internet. Still, I believe there is a place for a working group to look at 
this.

I have subscribed already.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se