Re: [homenet] Home-network support (was Re: [Anima] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter

[Rene Struik <[e-mail]>]

Dear colleagues:

It seems that the definition of the coined term "professionally managed" 
is somewhat ambiguous.

 From an architectural point of view, I would like to see
a) Design of management functionality with lots of flexibility as to 
which device(s) assume which role(s), with consideration of the entire 
device and network lifecycle.
b) No assignment as to which devices assume which role(s) cast in stone 
(so, no hardcoding of assumptions or attempts to ossify business 
interests into an architectural design!).

This allows both (what I believe some people mean with the term) 
"professionally managed" by the likes of ISPs, but also re-assignment of 
responsibilities (without, God forbid, "SIM lock-in behavior" of the 
usual suspects).

If one accepts this, the aspect as to whether something is 
"professionally managed" or not becomes something that is a 
configuration parameter and one can focus on enabling the flexibility to 
let a million business model flowers bloom...

Please also see the excerpt of minutes Anima (UCAN) BOF Minutes (see 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/minutes/minutes-90-ucan):

o  Rene Struik - Little verbiage around the use side of the usage scenarios. Need to
    understand the users dependency on the vendor over the long-run. From user perspective,
    one should aim for no forced lock-in by vendor by technical means, i.e., one needs
    "vendor dependency neutrality", similar to "network neutrality".

Best regards, Rene


On 10/7/2014 2:12 PM, Mark Baugher (mbaugher) wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Townsley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> I suggest that ANIMA focus on "professionally-managed" networks first,
>>>> with "Homenet" being a secondary consideration, akin to IPv4 is in the
>>>> homenet WG.
>>> I like that suggestion, with a caveat. The caveat being that I think
>>> there is room for a "professionally managed" home network as well -
>>> something homenet to date has touched on, but for the most part
>>> avoided.
>> Sure;  we have avoided it because I think most see the only professional
>> nearby being the ISP, and few of *us* professionals want them mucking around
>> in our home.  That's the personal experience of IETF contributors as
>> individuals.
> The major retail brands also offer remote network support using tools that
> come with their routers.  It should always be possible to plug a router in
> front of an ISP device for "over-the-top" support from whatever provider
> one trusts to do that.  And I think most people would benefit from having
> professional support on their home network though few seem to be willing
> to pay for it.  The more competent ISPs often do it for free.  But there's
> the problem of having routers owned by other entities on the network:
> An ISP device and a retail device is probably more common than two ISPs.
>
>> However, we also see in our architecture that we expect two be able to get
>> service from two ISPs, so in the end, our pessimism about the ability of the
>> ISP professional to manage our home network is legitimate.  There can't be
>> only one --- cooperation is required.
> If the cooperation entails telling your competitors who your customers happen
> to be, then it's probably a requirement that won't be satisfied, at least
> not for a long time.
>
>> There are other professional organizations that would like to help manage our
>> homes: Apple, Google and Microsoft come to mind.  Yet, even there, we expect
>> cooperation.   That's why the secure bootstrap problem is more difficult in
>> the home than it is, in for instance, an oil refinery.
>>
> The only model that seems realistic to me is to have the home network owner
> take ownership of the home network, possibly with the help of a third
> party that is contracted to provide professional support.
>
> Mark
>
>
>>> It should be up to the user to decide to have their home network
>>> professionally managed of course, but as long as that choice is made, a
>>> "professionally managed network" WG might be able to provide tooling
>>> equally as well for the home as for an enterprise (or SOHO, etc, to
>>> Leddy's point). Here is where including what homenet has already done
>>> is important for a new WG, if nothing else but to coexist properly
>>> between the two solutions. For example, Homenet has had to spend quite
>>> a bit of cycles dealing with what we think the home network will look
>>> like by the time HNCP arrives (Hierarchical DHCPv6-PD, HIPNET,
>>> etc.). Anima should be able to make the same consideration for how to
>>> operate with HNCP in the network as well - e.g., new "professionally
>>> managed" solution when available, "non-managed" via HNCP otherwise.
>>> In terms of scope of work and where it is done, I'm not sure this means
>>> the "professionally managed home" work should done in anima or homenet
>>> WGs, but I do know we shouldn't do it with blinders on.
>> What do you mean "with blinders on" here?
>> Usually that means that the horse has blinders to avoid distraction by things
>> that aren't in front of them.   So I think that you mean that professional
>> managed ideas should be visible to Homenet and ANIMA, but do you really mean:
>>         ANIMA should pay attention to non-managed networks
>>         HOMENET should pay attention to managed networks
>>
>> -- 
>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> homenet mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet


-- 
email: [e-mail] | Skype: rstruik
cell: [phone] | US: [phone]