Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 06 October 2019 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 4A339120127; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 15:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 CF9xgK8QfEk3; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x543.google.com (mail-pg1-x543.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::543]) (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 DC83512003E; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x543.google.com with SMTP id t3so1192786pga.8; Sun, 06 Oct 2019 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cCwRlJ271ccoT6h7hCvkMy3tQWiq0LLPawEUPvrFcYg=; b=iu+kx2CnJeknAhUUzTcr1luN64Tz86rgZuV9YtuAFklrXJQJj4KU+XovnYRhrZYdxF fkZPaPNjur/Mp1v/tgGmoAj/gs+rIg2v17kWlQQIFwDQcKWFELn5NuohWHQOG1eHMOaZ kwZcGiy2zIFMTOLDcy2UF+nus9XqnCXQX5zrbT04UkTaze+SFfRLgf4y4yO4+Jxb0T1R NWjxM6QbJEb7Zbmy8GMmGdaAWr91yGK3FfU7a0BxRtTW21fP9d+v05Kqx9z95Z99M6y/ dwc5EMIN4Or3+u3g20Xz9jPmFQKQP1BtKnYbfKi3rpYuXfgObv12P1l6FVc+MtMDk/+r VsLA==
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:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cCwRlJ271ccoT6h7hCvkMy3tQWiq0LLPawEUPvrFcYg=; b=ldzHAzyatNtA1znj/HYRMIzg2IOBi3/xpG6xjAS9LMm8I+/dwlZfTnS/qKW5X8nY5g 8D3xBWKFkaWPQcBkPRGNwlA9anT8tRj4GLVAQ0frYvPKVGCgQ8liQwx8gdVFHLvXHZsV zyS4b2NT6KC0As5dIa6Cq65ak+s/mwwCx2S9NIHQ87uuSEXNOuRLuWb54yYixRm4Syz6 NF4VfqDnpyUna8wjpUGMb101wZQX2Mlpa/j2cTxEAIjfruzIkb2H/28MbY/fBqCKAr5j YLGTXDbbc56IyQmvB4P4kw5Jr7Vey2CsUYIJ1YNz2A70EItn3EQA7lggGFrvEfg6u/Os y4Yw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVJSss7jbCTos4lcwy3a2YwkOsRDfCpXbEl3sr/faaN/ayWdpjM Ukrh/FdYo7cnTfDmDRWNHvrxpkAV
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyRYqK92VyP1xk35mNzXpWqwS1KNXyGb5O1g6/LvNYb346JgyMvXi+Cm2y5ilzbntrZswpH+g==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:7597:: with SMTP id q145mr28662068pfc.181.1570402019880; Sun, 06 Oct 2019 15:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (233.148.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.148.233]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q88sm20509606pjq.9.2019.10.06.15.46.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 06 Oct 2019 15:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>, Markus Stenberg <homenet@ietf.org>
References: <56255ECF-9002-4440-BA0D-665EFC4BA9C6@fugue.com> <F638F635-9A1C-409E-BDB8-C00DF00A64C8@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1910040752050.968@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A52F076F-817D-4807-8CD6-280C2040AEBF@employees.org> <5F0D2E3D-BE20-4421-8A37-E81E6B93B3A5@fugue.com> <E50D25C7-8EF1-4685-9442-021F019F7F62@employees.org> <60B2C15B-E126-4F86-AA9A-9EB9A6C0EB2D@fugue.com> <FBCD2C32-9CBE-4499-A3E9-0FF4991E34DF@employees.org> <A5D12082-3D6A-4540-9AFB-2530D4FA6A32@fugue.com> <CAO42Z2yOdxkfMWJEBWK-J=UWPQ5CyPJ3j0b+HarwXWV4GkK87g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <caa2254d-9800-8315-68c5-ce02e58f5a61@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 11:46:55 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2yOdxkfMWJEBWK-J=UWPQ5CyPJ3j0b+HarwXWV4GkK87g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/Em2ZDr0GrSZWjzjhXZPKvtdOI70>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...
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: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 22:47:03 -0000

On 07-Oct-19 11:34, Mark Smith wrote:
> Perhaps ANIMA is an alternative? It has seemed to me that home networks might be just a more specific case of autonomic networks.

...for professionally managed networks. So there would be new work to do, if we wanted to expand the scope.

> 
> For example, they've been defining a Generic Autonomic Signalling Protocol (GRASP).
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/wg/anima/
> 
> Brian Carpenter has been working on an implementation.
> 
> https://github.com/becarpenter/graspy

Which is plastered with warnings that it's not fit for real-life usage, as a prototype written in Python.

   Brian

> 
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, 08:41 Ted Lemon, <mellon@fugue.com <mailto:mellon@fugue.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Oct 6, 2019, at 10:58 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org <mailto:otroan@employees.org>> wrote:
>>     Are you saying there might be gaps in HNCP? Or things we could do to make it more deployable?
>>     If it's just a matter of running code missing, I'm not sure defining anything else new in the IETF would help that problem.
> 
>     There are definitely missing features from the protocol that I’d like to add.   But I think the fact that the protocol isn’t deployed on a _single_ commercially available router, and is not really usable on OpenWRT by a non-expert, is an indication that there is substantial remaining work to do.   Operations work is not out of scope for IETF; maybe I should have asked this on v6ops.   We have historically said “not our problem,” but I don’t agree that that’s the right answer.   If HNCP had really convincingly solved the problem, we would not be seeing what we are seeing.
> 
>>     I know why I haven't implemented HNCP on software I work on... and I also know that there aren't any very realistic alternatives either.
> 
>     Can you say why that is?
> 
>>     RA guard isn't applicable in a RFC7084 context. RFC7078 talks about routing and routers. I.e. what happens at the network layer.
> 
>     You mean at the “internet layer,” I assume?
> 
>>     If you are talking about what happens at the often integrated bridge CE devices have, then sure, they could implement RA Guard.
>>     But having your additional router sending RAs across the homenet might not be a particularly good idea anyway.
> 
>     Why not?   What would be a better idea?   I don’t mean to say that using RAs in this way is ideal, but what’s the alternative that doesn’t involve the vast complexity of per-host routing?
> 
>>     Sounds like you need to set it up as a NAT.
> 
>     I really hope you are just making a funny joke here.   But it’s not very funny.   What I want is something that’s operationally simple, not something with lots of moving parts that have to be kept track of.   NATs in particular suck for any UDP-based protocol.
> 
>>     I wasn't thinking of doing it exactly like the 6lowpan does it.
>>     Regardless I don't see why scaling should be problematic, are you planning to have millions of rapidly moving hosts on your shared /64 network?
> 
>     If you have N devices on a single link on the other side of the router, then when using either RA or a routing protocol, the amount of information you need to propagate to get things working is very small: just a prefix and a router.   If you can’t do that, then the amount of information you need to propagate is at a minimum N units, and possibly K*N, for some not insignificant factor K.
> 
>     To be clear, the reason I’m concerned about this is that I’ve looked at implementing it on OpenWRT, and it’s at least roughly doubling the complexity of the work required, even if you can depend on using IPv6.   If you have to use IPv4 on one side, then it’s even more complexity.   And it’s utterly stupid complexity—it adds no value over subnetting.   Why add that to the network?
> 
>     This is why I’m asking people if they have knowledge of what is actually deployed.   I think this is the right place to ask, but if you disagree, I’m open to suggestions.
> 
> 
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>