Re: [homenet] supporting homenet in CE routers

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 17 November 2017 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 681CB1293E4 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:07:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=inf-net-nl.20150623.gappssmtp.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 JVDszsIkgSOT for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:07:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com (mail-wm0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (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 EA17E1293DA for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id v186so4643340wma.2 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:07:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inf-net-nl.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=spuhZBj3al55dYOxc1hFduN86/hl7B9VW36a5m1dM9U=; b=R2N+1ONPQqzKYOrrE2EXoiwPFvu/MEAyffB5MyrrffPPCYm+jT8YbMok9MGDIv2xzu jn2iJMu+iMcyidoYjf/+uIxKg9zw4Wqxu3iePvYLbgdkzgxaHkr+kn7gyD94iJH5zsTA X4NAWCQg5Wdj1/No73qJE9KvZJRHsYdLe3LLrd54e4ka4ZDJ03yxNfYW7F/LxI//wybS e1n08llefVTTBHuENrJNHtqzGo+FtRTMbteDcCnyKSWhIqgT0jtfTU8jqxq3s7mzVfZA ny1zp3gGmLzQZFtnL+ttk1zfKK5/iGKc/ThzmC0/Z7Vmvs+LnwoCZ9UCDjju6qi7r3wb MR2A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=spuhZBj3al55dYOxc1hFduN86/hl7B9VW36a5m1dM9U=; b=CWQ5GniPNtd0ZABSzvwHtVJd7r4AbwKZQuV5Im0Hmg0wEPffv+hJzCyir8Yb3hd+/J UV5AalgMRFw4O1WveTUSEM6yEMFvE9gYfaOx3JY3KqVB/q9ciFn/CpPWRub5nfWhdG70 /oCk+C2xSa5dK2DpaAGDXTXsv7Z+Wpb70yIEWrKSzDu7Q/bLef1gk48HrN+0tRpy5Aq2 LmzTgy+MP1MG3De3r+/Tg++PpOmqrGe6SsNE3/YzMsyuwyOOfF2vgkkyBhQGSCEfGfku HnY4fkKaT/BosHt7jY86J+x50ImRAD7S/J0TNIP9TMqL34jwedEv2WzWgCFX6cetU47k DMpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7xWhH8DIv5VWxdwvO3sh0noAmKRvKkrnk9yIbwbgvNs9dWrpe8 zuD4N+vyKDB8nXb59guSn3ZmSYxjtbs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbljXJYLAh58kL4nScGLI001SwJmennZusGFFN3aTZIzIddqdwdj7V2IFRyl8sipgVQt5FPyw==
X-Received: by 10.80.138.99 with SMTP id i90mr6437447edi.207.1510906019481; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:06:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipv6.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([2001:1c01:3101:6700:7e6d:62ff:fe8c:ee91]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 3sm2080859edv.50.2017.11.17.00.06.58 for <homenet@ietf.org> (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:06:58 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <D0D251A6-84A2-4A45-AEE3-401F204DAEF0@google.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 09:06:57 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0E7FFCC1-E95E-4407-8579-528F801BA916@inf-net.nl>
References: <30DB1ABA-97E5-4EC0-8D3F-635F30E774FE@consulintel.es> <D0D251A6-84A2-4A45-AEE3-401F204DAEF0@google.com>
To: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/NKG-pgJlrovQUmep1EBc1ZBGy2s>
Subject: Re: [homenet] supporting homenet in CE routers
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:07:04 -0000

My 2ct: if an ISP provided IPv6 CE router (or other equipment) does support HOMENET, HOMENET WG shall define ways to do it. 

Why would my ISP be interested in HOMENET? 
1) Looking around in my house, I see CE routers (one active) & hotspots & mediaboxes sold or leased from my ISP. They have different origins. Delivered in last couple of years. They interconnect via ethernet and coax, I could choose powerline. How they interconnect: far from HOMENET architecture.
2) My monthly fee is high enough to provide best class services. The ISP offers Internet acces over cable and over the mobile network. Due to merges, they have (leased) DSL in their portfolio as well. So they would be interested in the HOMENET multihoming capability, even for a single subscription. My neighbors living further away from my village have low-speed DSL and mobile network only. Here, the business case for multi-homing is evident.

Teco 


> Op 16 nov. 2017, om 20:45 heeft james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 20:59, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
>> 
>> As requested in the meeting, here is the question to the WG.
>> Do we believe that homenet WG should work in a document to specify how and what IPv6 CE routers should support for a correct homenet support?
> 
> My answer to this question has not changed. I believe the WG should not try to write any specification applicable to IPv6 CE routers. Instead I strongly believe the resources of the working group are best spent on specifying the behavior of HOMENET domain interior routers, recognizing the ways existing IPv6 CE routers behave, and the documenting the considerations entailed by their behavior for the benefit of developers of interior routers. I do not believe that HOMENET is in any position to specify how IPv6 CE routers are to behave.
> 
> 
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet