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

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 10/6/19 2:41 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2019, at 10:58 AM, Ole Troan <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Are you saying there might be gaps in HNCP? Or things we could do to 
>> make it more deployable?
>> If it's just a matter of running code missing, I'm not sure defining 
>> anything else new in the IETF would help that problem.
>
> There are definitely missing features from the protocol that I’d like 
> to add.   But I think the fact that the protocol isn’t deployed on a 
> _single_ commercially available router, and is not really usable on 
> OpenWRT by a non-expert, is an indication that there is substantial 
> remaining work to do.   Operations work is not out of scope for IETF; 
> maybe I should have asked this on v6ops.   We have historically said 
> “not our problem,” but I don’t agree that that’s the right answer.   
> If HNCP had really convincingly solved the problem, we would not be 
> seeing what we are seeing.

If the protocol is not truly plug and play in reality... wasn't that the 
entire premise? That doesn't sound like an ops problem. I understand 
that openwrt is a wonk box, but still if there isn't default 
configuration that would make it truly plug and play for most 
situations, that sounds really problematic.

Can you confirm or not that openwrt could be set up by default in a way 
that met the charter's requirements for operations (ie, like what you 
might expect in a commercial home router)?

Mike


>
>> I know why I haven't implemented HNCP on software I work on... and I 
>> also know that there aren't any very realistic alternatives either.
>
> Can you say why that is?
>
>> RA guard isn't applicable in a RFC7084 context. RFC7078 talks about 
>> routing and routers. I.e. what happens at the network layer.
>
> You mean at the “internet layer,” I assume?
>
>> If you are talking about what happens at the often integrated bridge 
>> CE devices have, then sure, they could implement RA Guard.
>> But having your additional router sending RAs across the homenet 
>> might not be a particularly good idea anyway.
>
> Why not?   What would be a better idea?   I don’t mean to say that 
> using RAs in this way is ideal, but what’s the alternative that 
> doesn’t involve the vast complexity of per-host routing?
>
>> Sounds like you need to set it up as a NAT.
>
> I really hope you are just making a funny joke here.   But it’s not 
> very funny.   What I want is something that’s operationally simple, 
> not something with lots of moving parts that have to be kept track of. 
>   NATs in particular suck for any UDP-based protocol.
>
>> I wasn't thinking of doing it exactly like the 6lowpan does it.
>> Regardless I don't see why scaling should be problematic, are you 
>> planning to have millions of rapidly moving hosts on your shared /64 
>> network?
>
> If you have N devices on a single link on the other side of the 
> router, then when using either RA or a routing protocol, the amount of 
> information you need to propagate to get things working is very small: 
> just a prefix and a router.   If you can’t do that, then the amount of 
> information you need to propagate is at a minimum N units, and 
> possibly K*N, for some not insignificant factor K.
>
> To be clear, the reason I’m concerned about this is that I’ve looked 
> at implementing it on OpenWRT, and it’s at least roughly doubling the 
> complexity of the work required, even if you can depend on using IPv6. 
>   If you have to use IPv4 on one side, then it’s even more complexity. 
>   And it’s utterly stupid complexity—it adds no value over subnetting. 
>   Why add that to the network?
>
> This is why I’m asking people if they have knowledge of what is 
> actually deployed.   I think this is the right place to ask, but if 
> you disagree, I’m open to suggestions.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet