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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 23 April 2019 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 282EC1205F1 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7oq8r7Myv5Vw for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0477A1205F8 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [75.98.19.133]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABA731F457 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 21:40:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id BDD96353F; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:40:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <894b4181-c4ca-5cf1-adba-1c5fcab0d355@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <894b4181-c4ca-5cf1-adba-1c5fcab0d355@cs.tcd.ie>
Comments: In-reply-to Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> message dated "Fri, 01 Mar 2019 21:21:58 +0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:40:28 -0400
Message-ID: <15016.1556055628@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/1mfKCQz4cId908uveJMbexcI0aU>
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: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 21:40:39 -0000

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
    > (5) it's fine stuff, but IMO not going to be used, so
    > there's not much point in producing RFCs
    
    > (6) not sure at the moment,
    > maybe the WG should go quiescent for a while 'till we know more

After having various homenet threads in my inbox for 6 weeks, I've been
through them, and through Ted's marketing requirements draft.

My feeling is (6), until we are sure about (5).
Your list is unclear what "it" is, I think it might naming, but it might be
bigger.  I think that we should wait a bit longer.

My take is that wifi-roaming across a big house problem has been solved in
proprietary spaces for those that have this problem, and they are unlikely to
replace their solution with the WiFi easyMesh one.  easyMesh may show up
openWRT thanks to prpl, and it might become ubiquitously available available,
just in time to not be used, because the last thing anyone wants from a
home network security point of view is every IoT device on the same L2.

There is significant effort to isolate IoT devices on seperate L2s via
what in the enterprise switch space is called MAC-based-VLANs.  The only
devices that "move" in such a network are the laptops and mobile phones, and
both could easily take on a variety of mechanisms including things like
off-link /128s. 

I joined HOMENET (and spent personal money attending the first interim
meeting in PHL) because I saw HOMENET as an attempt to get rid of the stupid
L2 tricks that IPv4 scarcity forced people into.   I recognize the often
futility of trying to lead industry with specifications. In the homenet
case, I thought a few major vendors were committed, but I was wrong.

I think that perhaps the naming work could move to DNSSD WG if closing down
the WG was important.  At least if we had one WG then there potential
scheduling conflict would reduced.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [