Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

[james woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

On 10/27/2017 03:43 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>
> Uh-huh.  But there's just one single uplink behind which there's a local
> network with multiple hosts -- unlike the one uplink-one host topology you
> were describing in your earlier mail.

Yes, but the situation is confounded by not just A) devices that are 
capable of connecting to more than one service provider network, at 
times simultaneously and other times with some hand-over, and B) 
subscribers who have multiple devices that can each connect only to a 
different service provider.

An example of devices in category A include mobile handsets, e.g. 
Android and iPhone, which can hand-over between 3GPP and Wi-Fi networks 
without any user interaction.

An example of subscribers in category B include people with both a home 
security system that only connects through a 3GPP network and home 
appliances that only connect through a Wi-fi network.

>>> At least over here, there definitely is a market for non-trivial home
>>> networks
> 
>> Indeed, and I think there is definitely a case for IETF establishing
>> standards for how to use Internet protocols in them, as HOMENET is
>> doing. What I don't think is helpful is gating our development of those
>> standards on the predicate that ISPs should have anything to do with
>> it.
> 
> Agreed, as long as we don't assume normal people want one uplink per host.

My slightly more nuanced view is that normal people don't like (but 
they're going to have to put up with) the complexity of there being more 
than one way to connect their home devices to the Internet, e.g., 3GPP 
and Wi-fi (not to mention Thread), each with its own cost functions and 
performance characteristics.

Moreover, I think it would be a good aspirational goal to write and 
adopt a standard by which normal residential users can build and 
maintain residential networks independent of any particular first-mile 
like technology or service provider. To that end, my argument is that 
the standards we should pursue here in this working group should not 
depend on any particular service provider adopting it. Much less for the 
standard to be adopted by every service provider everywhere.

If it were up to me, I'd lock them out entirely. And take active 
measures to keep them locked out indefinitely. I realize this is 
probably a minority view, but I'm expressing here it anyway.


--james