Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 11, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> The example that, in contrast to all other content, is when content is
> zero-rated via 3G but not via WIFI. (generalized to any two uplinks)
> I don't know the source address selection or source routing can deal with
> that problem period.

Two points here.   First of all, does the IETF want to support zero-rating on a technological level?   I guess we're somewhat agnostic about it, but I would be resistant to spending cycles on it unless somebody is really energized about it.   It seems to me that if you have zero-rating, you have a problem.

That said, I certainly agree with you that MPvD doesn't solve this problem.   The general attitude with MPvD is that when you have multiple provisioning domains, it's not necessarily the case that you can believe the claims that one provider or the other makes.   If you want to zero-rate, the person who's going to be paying for it when the zero-rating doesn't happen is going to be responsible for making sure that it's configured correctly.   If the person who makes the money is responsible for configuring it, they are going to configure it in a way that serves their interests, not the user's interests.

What MPvD _does_ do in addressing this problem is that it provides a context in which special-casing for zero-rating can be effectively configured.   Without MPvD or something like it, it's actually impossible to support zero-rating, even if you think that's a desirable thing to do.

If we were to support zero-rating, the way I would propose that we do it is to specify a way that a provider can advertise the availability of zero-rating for some set of products, and the user can choose to accept or not accept that advertising in a convenient way, rather than having to manually configure a whitelist.   But don't get me started on the opportunities for trouble that this idea presents.

> It seems to me that we are re-inventing SHIM6, trying in vain to pretend we
> never heard of that.  And I still don't understand why it was killed.

Shim6 attempts to solve a much larger problem, and in a rather heavyweight and top-down way.