Re: [homenet] About Ted's naming architecture presentation and document

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 11/22/2016 01:12 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
>> On 21 Nov 2016, at 19:34, james woodyatt <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 17:31, Michael Richardson <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> But, do you agree that publishing your home lighting controller to 
>>> the DNS is
>>> how you manage to control your lights from your phone when you are 
>>> out of
>>> wifi distance, as you roam to 3G. (I switch to 3G when I get to the 
>>> front of
>>> my rather modest driveway, as the AP is in the back of the basement)?
>>
>> If anybody is currently shipping, or has announced plans to ship, any 
>> kind of home automation device that does this, please speak up on the 
>> mailing list. I’d like to calibrate my perhaps mistaken apprehension 
>> that nobody would seriously consider doing this. Everyone I know in 
>> this field plans to do this by providing a single public rendezvous 
>> point with high availability servers that communicate in turn to home 
>> automation controllers acting as private clients.
>
> There are certainly many devices I access directly in my home, e.g. 
> webcams, media servers, but these are not real home automation 
> devices, and not providing “mission critical” functions. They mostly 
> work via web ports and, where IPv4-only, require an amount of port 
> mapping shenanigans. I do have some IPv6 services running in my home 
> that I access remotely.
>
> The challenge with home automation is that there’s a particular need 
> for that service to be both secure and reliable (high uptime). 
> Obviously Mirai has highlighted the problem of insecure IoT in the 
> home, especially through access via default passwords being left in place.
>
> That said, there are examples of home automation companies that have 
> stopped trading, leaving the devices in the home useless. Similarly 
> with some “Internet toys” that require the mothership to still be in 
> orbit for them to work. Non-proprietary devices/protocols are perhaps 
> as important as the architecture itself.

Right. Since Homenet is predicated on ipv6, we should never bake in 
expectations of doglegging that have their justifications in v4/nat. 
There are perfectly
good reasons I don't want to hand over control to some dogleg servers 
whose primary reason for being is to make me a product. I can put that 
controller
into my own home and operate it (and in fact, i do exactly that today 
even in v4-land). And homenet as standards should certainly not be 
catering to some
particular business model -- allow me to opt into being the product, 
thankyouverymuch.

Mike