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

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Mon, 30 October 2017 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@google.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 C461013F64F for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 IqhnYZVa650y for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x234.google.com (mail-io0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::234]) (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 CEEA013A1F4 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 189so29513141iow.10 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QX2WYJKQXonMGm9ZPzjYJRpXK+6QaEP2sDigqWrbZok=; b=dRT0DRBF99qktZwyV1zvcdPC7IOk1VIPmD6bTCq86419aMD1Tv8QCS4bcN61F5iNTf oSPAZMfnz4cj7bexwmg9ELk/BAwtx9xpFIWGMwhxitgAx5UB+iGvkEyH/efg6jXjmxsa Reta17rIqYk8nTzYbD/mSK7zwmb/ifWV+qOf1V4yKcOXnLCK08vSnwOKs4g8E5aFk59E dMDlW4LpDsSwJleFG+l7hmO3tD9pyzNGdx+bicSAqKnHSp3JPP4SEeOqcemTeWwi+L/3 +2+D9Rwb+ysdTfz8rnG1qHxShwhoi17uLPMP+lO1HvmKJ1D+4/GBe+DMhsRcOMaGGOW4 y3pg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QX2WYJKQXonMGm9ZPzjYJRpXK+6QaEP2sDigqWrbZok=; b=j4zw2eFlDzqcZOIsPM+L00kuv6OA6k62hScAQDnhjaPM58frPPg7W0EYUQT2V9SXhC /MQNGVTmGJbUlf2vhVGkf/T3aQJ+edTZbXuSqdKBRioZ1zaZzoW62jwAlJRhDquEOVP2 ftUrb6RFxOgUin+gRkd6bajEBbCmuVPQtK5E5fJl3IolwnqWYw3lFa2DeqfVMo7x9rQE wstdno9mLmzDQsfvYh7D7XPl2A8OOHsWb+xAys+4avcwV6P1z1+k5718GOwt5f3KEt8L 3XRACOK8u2yDpsO4ua8PbzHdkXfi5zg+gmFxBIVHaik2G+lOZJu8wyY/MoGSDDgOtlzg W0RA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUcSMvorVr7QbsWcalq1VHqsnQ9q6PB81WQKkEGMpOWn/nEx+ST e00j1ULLRm/ORMxYg8rek0+drnR7RvM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+RiJV2vHlhNq56IzPg89a/TrPysQm6Xjag+TMeyQ57sBesulZ/Mz6LJg8nEadkiU+AuEPS/fQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.70.212 with SMTP id j203mr7019909itb.52.1509389539529; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2620:0:10e7:7:c048:bfa9:aa30:da1d? ([2620:0:10e7:7:c048:bfa9:aa30:da1d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f3sm6361121iob.70.2017.10.30.11.52.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
Cc: homenet@ietf.org
References: <80D10C70-9411-48EE-8189-87E9401D7F22@consulintel.es> <FFB4541F-0BDB-4D5F-B6BB-647EFD0FE27E@google.com> <20171024140034.GS45648@Space.Net> <7iwp3i3pev.wl-jch@irif.fr> <63640f24-f178-2fe7-7c1f-e2680496b733@google.com> <20171026183952.GI45648@Space.Net> <9cfd149e-fb08-22ed-3fa9-9a1786a2a95d@google.com> <8737652ao1.wl-jch@irif.fr> <f04db4ae-28cc-8189-03d5-c05042667d30@google.com> <87lgjwdxfc.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Message-ID: <322bb4f8-9fbf-4eda-f14e-fb64a2b35a95@google.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:52:17 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87lgjwdxfc.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/6chv9Xcw84XY39kuUZi318Ob_oE>
Subject: Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:52:23 -0000

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