Re: [homenet] auto-passthrough from ISP routers

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 26 July 2020 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 B035E3A1465 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 13:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 of8GTaSrQOWj for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 13:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E1B53A1463 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 13:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A101F38A5A; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:27:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id OusaxdHZGHBM; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:27:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A604D38A54; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:27:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7A71AA; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:47:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: otroan@employees.org, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, homenet@ietf.org, Barbara H Stark <bs7652@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <ACFFD80D-6CF1-46BC-BFC8-001259D481C9@employees.org>
References: <EFFD3C14-2DB9-4445-8991-5557AE6A8623@employees.org> <EC9C381D-113A-4E28-A6C0-9AC9D202DF93@fugue.com> <ACFFD80D-6CF1-46BC-BFC8-001259D481C9@employees.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:47:37 -0400
Message-ID: <17962.1595796457@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/G_JZvPE8HdNHODq-UK7aabX4zEg>
Subject: Re: [homenet] auto-passthrough from ISP routers
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, 26 Jul 2020 20:47:44 -0000

otroan@employees.org wrote:
    >>>> On 23 Jul 2020, at 18:58, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> This is very cool.
    >>>> Is it written up as a specification somewhere?  What is the signal that the
    >>>> device behind is a router, and not a PC?
    >>>>
    >>>> Why isn't homenet standardizing this?
    >>>
    >>> Cause it's architecturally "challenged"?
    >>
    >> The working group or the solution?

    > Not sure how you could interpret that as pointing to the working group.

    > The solution obviously.
    > IPv4 "pass through" implies sharing the IPv4 address among multiple nodes.
    > Creating all sorts of tricky problems.

Yeah, it's a weird situation where it basically is forced/transparent
proxying it's management port, and then letting everything else through.
Definitely a place where moving the management to IPv6 would be easier.

I think that the signaling that is observed to cause the bypass should be written down.
That it nicely does DHCPv6-PD proxying is very nice.

I think that had this description come to the WG five years ago, we would
have thought about it deeply.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-