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

Ted Lemon <> Mon, 07 October 2019 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BEC12080F for <>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 07:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mawsFT9t7ITH for <>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 07:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76E5F1208A0 for <>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 07:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y39so11143377ota.7 for <>; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 07:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=wysz/c+XQOK9hSTwz+2LCeJwprrEBlgZgqgACYz/7mk=; b=CgM4LG+jOnI34qAGZDL5XFqRmwifs0CXlqbUjZq/GESOF5XriIVRpnLavilgBNwifR qg2j0528CmZxoUtvVktRGmqhykfb71QKjK9REgi8tFlPMh37xpxbiUXH4URCqxXjKykM wmbrxjTNUUtAHsrb7aoZKQtBjy/hzkEhPgNwq02MWLGdT3hIW/MU+bOcZP+mzh2rRNE6 KjdQaeN7A75cc5YRyPV3rrAB7390hiSmwoqJv1bdW/XTm55d26nOZGBxVtczxbtgRnv6 GsaLx6XpJAqYx2CEDzZ9PRPyk1GX4j3awwYhkcBEwlvAPNfVxIkHFe0c4RDJdD4JXF7S Jmgg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=wysz/c+XQOK9hSTwz+2LCeJwprrEBlgZgqgACYz/7mk=; b=U/LW0VupbWVGzlvIXm0eEYh8CgUvZYjamFbdmOIWEk9emCOaZve5Pc6yzzBvkCyAj+ DyFW6wNxot2UOxd3TjJg92RSE6o4O5JGyGzG9fDnr18Vh2zP8qJJAc4NksDEbivffv8k O0tyvNixyEHQrWs9wMOsnbCQuhx242TZ/gLvzzQZmm6Rd7rYvqHMHbB0XccUCGep0xBy W86VvDwkkfOJ4awY+kP3skTK3KkP8ZVtwJnN0rA8oebBOUueY9xrY/XZIwL4uVyhrvmC crMZHlMBIuEPa7V/QC+rQ6zRIlZ+uDejdzHaZxwjTpEGjBb18nhwD+O+eKaTSRqDFlBA pXVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXmPdlhGdHFDWZWzcwAOjQHI2E0wnFprW8fGNy7GT/Vk+XU7Mgq TxcTD/YE9zOV5yU081TH/mFCmA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwI6bh6oDlc2UkjxZNWMt3ABaBTZ85wYcKU9cm9zdJJCOUYK3IFJiJ9Mi2FPX/JeJMXUo0rmA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:117:: with SMTP id i23mr4270650otp.24.1570459036788; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 07:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id a9sm4417319oie.7.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Oct 2019 07:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3E0CA267-FFDE-425C-ACA7-2C93ABC46EAE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3600\))
From: Ted Lemon <>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:37:14 -0500
Cc: Michael Richardson <>, Markus Stenberg <>, 6MAN <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: RayH <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3600)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 14:37:28 -0000

On Oct 7, 2019, at 9:15 AM, RayH <> wrote:
> My preferred path would be to look at why Homenet hasn't been rolled out.
> If it's because manufacturers aren't updating boxes at all, or even ipv6 at all as per my local internet non-service provider, another standard ain't going to solve that.
> So is there concensus on what's broken? And what needs fixing?

I think it’s a lot simpler than that: they don’t have to do it, so they don’t.   There’s no upside for them in adding complexity to the network, and that’s what this looks like.   In order for homenet to see widespread adoption, there has to be a problem it solves that lots of home users have.

TBH, one of the reasons that I am not in favor of ND proxy is precisely that it kicks this can even father down the road.   IoT network transit and similar applications are a clear use case for Homenet; building a solution that’s going in entirely the wrong evolutionary direction seems like an unfortunate plan.