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

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Mon, 07 October 2019 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 2C9F3120041; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 07:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=dxLRfod5; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=A5j/tG1Q
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 JyTtAwh3kpxY; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 07:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A54E12003F; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 07:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11320; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1570460085; x=1571669685; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=U53Gzb18aQVG+wChwbdUlaxCvY8Arrtmpf0sWjq4ITs=; b=dxLRfod5RaeraIVroel3iS4Rx3GY1AacbT0pYGZaoFM8hBmuYr7gkWSn Nei6aZUPzQhU/XkT9wCSh8h7w8UJWJ23QyP4uHQBAAYZatpQaD2HY6UCt Ncm3v6inuRPaEG/PhqFTU4kPNsdnx+nhXfLkXwtYxKqm0p32bxwRviQYG k=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AtPHgNRFq3FJdJwZ9C+r92Z1GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7I?= =?us-ascii?q?YmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e4z1Q3SRYuO7fVChqKWqK3mVWEaqbe5+HEZON0pNV?= =?us-ascii?q?cejNkO2QkpAcqLE0r+eeb2bzEwEd5efFRk5Hq8d0NSHZW2ag=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AJAABmUZtd/5BdJa1mGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEMAgEBAQGBUwUBAQEBCwGBGy9QA21WIAQLKoQjg0cDhFiFcYJckxuEYYE?= =?us-ascii?q?ugSQDVAkBAQEMAQEtAgEBhEACF4JFIzQJDgIDCQEBBAEBAQIBBQRthS0MhUs?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEEEhEKEwEBNwEPAgEIDgMEAQEoAwICAjAUCQgCBAENBQgTB4MBgR1NAx0?= =?us-ascii?q?BAqNkAoE4iGF1gTKCfQEBBYUJGIIXCYE0AYUVhngYgUA/gVeCHi4+gQSDQjS?= =?us-ascii?q?CVzKCJoxjgwqFNZgeCoIijCCJE5k/iWuEQZkyAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFSOYFYcBW?= =?us-ascii?q?DJ1AQFIFPDBeDUIpTdIEpkEMBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.67,268,1566864000"; d="scan'208,217";a="645755185"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 07 Oct 2019 14:54:21 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-020.cisco.com (xch-aln-020.cisco.com [173.36.7.30]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x97EsLTU022718 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 7 Oct 2019 14:54:21 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-ALN-020.cisco.com (173.36.7.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:54:20 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:54:19 -0500
Received: from NAM05-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:54:19 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=FIcVsdihNa7DjyHJvKY0yKsO9TL9yxg8eoOzTfrCJRRRRW24HPQa71H3xr10Q/hJoLoq3iyJaVCFvt2rpB8prr0yxVDYXN65tlMOdRKqQRC1rNTqM//e5x9gWsvP1QN8sopjOHLxqLYyTMHALIVi5Dn9nrNSl1C3+5iBbUaMZUOVcsDP08SXcHkneVUBlT+BMig7/DOHbeo4DuIE4tC8guRcwHPjXuS9q23b5aICuEYWQ/3MtjVZ4IVT/0u8sNXFAVwgir4OUVlAC+kzKTuiEsxhQ6DEQErLqYH/TyUt5vg4dsIfdyz+p9iOVJ9gRvGrn60BDAoBaupoD5TkeSOoFQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=U53Gzb18aQVG+wChwbdUlaxCvY8Arrtmpf0sWjq4ITs=; b=EIDiltKlR9pvtb9Gk6Y1F7NtXTh3H2EoM1MbF6WBQkMIbp4n968MYlqGuMB+uiTlatvj2WT5p7N/hB5Ge3a9wCLTPRRCbbKtkn8WNFynJpmDes+WJzuKCPEt1GwijwbT2jje6nPOjYkh5ZYgWyLY5ki3rJ52dwki24Z1gZrzxoHrcwGs++YBTmDbuehmosZyQ7vDVtRQCl0Mh7uKqFeJFKsA9tTNOhyq5ZX7g0AZx8wvU3taeRLlnJV1tgV8b/5aqlMpRour0WXbKxi2v3G/RiFfA27DJt/eKz5Irxckh0IhLrnJTw0JqCIeqFOa2EsALgV2OP6vjfCgZrEckoRnGg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=U53Gzb18aQVG+wChwbdUlaxCvY8Arrtmpf0sWjq4ITs=; b=A5j/tG1QLwFKAAQxo2GYnYnlkO0taDgBcAWoWFzHLMDDhlziQWv63Ao1ZPfUzhuifc5MNZdssfzl91tQszf6kzbQoCJFKesGDMm469sJ07CyJFersOcjhxnDBIOJDWouO53YNzc5doXd4PV3JhQLlX+N1v8ITJWrGomYnXF1GUU=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.250.159) by MN2PR11MB4014.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.255.181.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2327.24; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 14:54:18 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::652e:fba0:4959:7ce8]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::652e:fba0:4959:7ce8%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2327.023; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 14:54:18 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, RayH <v6ops@globis.net>
CC: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Markus Stenberg <homenet@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...
Thread-Index: AQHVekw77QkRy9Y6CE6R9UtF1+tLladJ+OcAgAAKJgCAAGG4gIAAD5yAgAAGO4CAACobgIADRf+AgAA+NQCAAJWqAIAAOtuAgAA9iQCAAAeugIAABiwAgAACgyA=
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 14:54:12 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 14:53:50 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB3565A473DEA5826FE18DE578D89B0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <5eb45953-f9f8-4d41-a8e4-960a0b8dedfb@email.android.com> <F18CA210-ECF7-49BA-8B90-9D70E7EAF6C8@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <F18CA210-ECF7-49BA-8B90-9D70E7EAF6C8@fugue.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pthubert@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c8:1008::17]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f0f13ecf-f193-41c7-94a3-08d74b363ae4
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4014:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB4014003C00D19261A45B00F5D89B0@MN2PR11MB4014.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 01834E39B7
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(376002)(366004)(346002)(396003)(136003)(189003)(199004)(110136005)(9686003)(6116002)(790700001)(76176011)(7736002)(25786009)(7696005)(71190400001)(71200400001)(316002)(33656002)(2906002)(54906003)(86362001)(256004)(14444005)(99286004)(476003)(74316002)(55016002)(6436002)(486006)(236005)(6306002)(54896002)(11346002)(446003)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(6246003)(4326008)(76116006)(478600001)(8936002)(81166006)(5660300002)(8676002)(81156014)(186003)(6506007)(53546011)(102836004)(52536014)(229853002)(6666004)(14454004)(46003)(66946007)(66574012); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4014; H:MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: rZk7Xy72z+Db1kiye87CtSbP+w7qiEOXSYb/pwh/zw9WiszZ5lE9lz0Y/T9XrtTZ8F/r3LlQSY0GcuW6uqBC7CuQAnP4uR/pXZsaA856tsYXIdtJQRFSgXmKfPwogHUmd58kGbDmUu/WyycVVMx06skSlGJ+LuoO4NzSEDbguCMQZv6GyN9AT2pkJ0KWe8ShQ/+WdyBoSSjnT5M61p2Zv1eWnNrs/2iebxQlIiQY6FVSDH6SKF6ZSfQQAr5eWDnF5D4ukdtp9EL2htTAfMXeHjSR4xZ6WmcmRZCaL3s7sQCGq1xmTzTUVbiX0IsMQL6YVe4nRk77gAP8NHW1JDNHzlpOPl/yED2WvpAaNLrwUr8M7hvyGZJa37HcX49YcIArGO25bstBh5iH/XeyY9AQmNH8Z4Lho7C2Rhbhrxcupq0=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR11MB3565A473DEA5826FE18DE578D89B0MN2PR11MB3565namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f0f13ecf-f193-41c7-94a3-08d74b363ae4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Oct 2019 14:54:18.2381 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: J/QqkdFt3Y39lFKH8KedvhRIqinjXstOpJJ/0wBpL8bu4LwcTzNvKVNyxdgGAClYwxagudaT5gMyMs3jG4kQUg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4014
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.30, xch-aln-020.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/LZj4czSEUQ68hAWPmqTJEDzs7qc>
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: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 14:54:48 -0000

Hello Ted :

The reason why we opted for ND proxy is not the lack of a homenet solution. It is rather the fact that the wireless node keeps moving from a mesh to the next and if they are different subnets then it needs to renumber, which we did not know how to do efficiently – think dhcp or autoconf, 1x, plus reregistration to the application, a number of round trips on constrained links, some of which real deep. Bottom line is that we wanted both the benefits of routing to control/avoid broadcast and those of a single subnet to control/avoid renumbering and we built accordingly.

Cheers,

Pascal

From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: lundi 7 octobre 2019 16:37
To: RayH <v6ops@globis.net>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>ca>; Markus Stenberg <homenet@ietf.org>rg>; 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

On Oct 7, 2019, at 9:15 AM, RayH <v6ops@globis.net<mailto:v6ops@globis.net>> 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.