Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Sat, 02 March 2019 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D6012785F for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 08:42:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 ss2E1XSjzvRH for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 08:42:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72d.google.com (mail-qk1-x72d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72d]) (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 176FB127287 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 08:42:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72d.google.com with SMTP id y15so585243qki.8 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Mar 2019 08:42:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=W4S3cPJO3AqaBD0M4ImSbYLapOZQKyOLHnHiUSYkHyM=; b=H/CveMtfKB/nFEbotGBRmdV84gFd8hvhIRi8eYFZCHfhPv8E3D2cf4GM7QiIk28IB4 SmpUeaUmfiBiadIkgTnYFJm0ibW+YyWlys/Hxe0Ew1S0YNbJYNlCrK4xsAmQZ3JmgsHh HNemtEdnkekIL7ZrrryTf6GMomIS2PULmY0o8Top7MK7Px+snxf+A5EJgUuI1Qs9sUVY VTKYFdK8JrssORSRsxushwC+AoaPOhwfjplPkzxMj/1vhHF1xmX8FA3WT/AzdJ0MPDlW knfg+mIbAorIegRd+YNFJUZkpbBgwd1ob5wSjKQIcDtI/mzCjWyyQ9x2CEvFWpMfjkl4 VCcg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=W4S3cPJO3AqaBD0M4ImSbYLapOZQKyOLHnHiUSYkHyM=; b=biTcYUdl277teNGsBORH5jd4TKjuGGW9oCVxpcnjdttidkpfPL764hXj4sH8Mnf2mZ Y8KruPCKBEf2vCCmWChlWUmiw1GKaXbQc2bnUGPyH0+EPUOurmcfgxmjaQ8CVqk93I8o mszdFR3TeMQSITIiGybjIfPg+BXSdsOdYBCgEpKq0/AXA6Wf3ryXkMq13wYYLcxT+9X/ OiAXbKl/NBMYKTwJe5iXMnIC/q0/RuuxJyf/NNtS9AriBeSs7pgVxG+LJjPs2VlSchLs z95pD+n0Dy7o9bNkxJLdqN+BMYctlJD0PXOm8J7CNCXht2Fxj6aKy6Qjyi5abJL5qEWe RhKw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX0UlhCU7V2bqEGyTQEvHWML3oQiCR0zg/eVohTBOHgzMZyuI7/ ZacQRJIojTciXS9ku1EY4XLckA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxfLyXDJeBzTCqbgTdQhQrL8cRhpMZ9eVnMuQWWCC2wesYUwtchbluZskgxtEls3mUy6bFLew==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:634b:: with SMTP id x72mr8186061qkb.151.1551544965914; Sat, 02 Mar 2019 08:42:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.100.12] (c-73-186-137-119.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.186.137.119]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o51sm700493qta.24.2019.03.02.08.42.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 02 Mar 2019 08:42:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <2B9C4EC0-7BE3-40E4-8AB4-C569916A9A6E@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5C9A3B38-0642-49B5-B8D7-7CDADBD16C3D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.2\))
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 11:42:43 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87fts55jdi.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Cc: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
References: <894b4181-c4ca-5cf1-adba-1c5fcab0d355@cs.tcd.ie> <90A48EC1-C13D-4B9B-9F04-252C0CC87084@fugue.com> <dbe6e19f-84c2-f2eb-b9ab-d085de7c299c@mtcc.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0C50C4@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <ed1e6a2c-b830-07fb-df0d-df6dae96cdd9@mtcc.com> <87fts55jdi.wl-jch@irif.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/-xOBCWct7Ck0mJdfP4zaWvlMkio>
Subject: Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 16:42:50 -0000

On Mar 2, 2019, at 11:30 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:
> No, they're not.
> 
> Both HNCP and Babel carry their control traffic over link-local IPv6, but
> they support both IPv4 and IPv6 with almost equal functionality.

This is one of the reasons that I would like us to get together and hack on this at the hackathon: in fact while what you are saying is technically true, in practice IPv4 _is_ treated like a second-class citizen in the sense that if your ISP-provided public IP address ever goes away, all of your RFC1918 addresses on the homenet also go away.

So on a practical level, homenets as currently specified really are, if not v6-only, then at least only-v6-reliable.

I think it would actually be better if homenets were IPv6-only, with NAT64 at the edge for the case where there is only an IPv4 address, but I imagine that this would not be a popular enough view to get consensus.  It would be equally good if IPv4 were just assumed to be required to work regardless of whether there’s an upstream IPv4 address.   This is something that we should really re-think—the way it is now isn’t ideal.