Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Sat, 02 March 2019 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 AB6FB124C04 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 11:42:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 c51QVEFssKEP for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 11:42:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D294112008A for <homenet@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 11:42:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22CD3826B; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 14:42:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 68E231BC7; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 14:42:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 675501BA2; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 14:42:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>
cc: homenet@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <3A3467BE-8E01-405D-B5D6-0497DE1ACE26@fl1ger.de>
References: <894b4181-c4ca-5cf1-adba-1c5fcab0d355@cs.tcd.ie> <90A48EC1-C13D-4B9B-9F04-252C0CC87084@fugue.com> <dbe6e19f-84c2-f2eb-b9ab-d085de7c299c@mtcc.com> <4803.1551485670@localhost> <3A3467BE-8E01-405D-B5D6-0497DE1ACE26@fl1ger.de>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 14:42:50 -0500
Message-ID: <21299.1551555770@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/PDVRwswe3Lwp7iQcwTlnTwffjbI>
Subject: Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?
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: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 19:42:56 -0000

Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de> wrote:
    > Moin!

    > On 2 Mar 2019, at 1:14, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >> I personally do not believe that Home Router firmware update practices have
    >> significantly improved.  I would welcome more recent data: is anyone
    >> collecting this on a regular basis?  I suspect that 90% of firmware updates
    >> occur because the (integrated) modem is replaced in order to upgrade
    >> bandwidth.

    > So you think this is a problem.

I'm saying that the devices are not getting updates, even ISP provided
ones.

    >> For the last 10 to 15 years the ISP-provided home router has come to
    >> dominate
    >> the market, with the belief by the ISPs that this is a MUST that they
    >> control
    >> the device.  Many (but not all) at the IETF do not share this view, but
    >> most
    >> non-technical users see the ISP provided router is simply saving the trip
    >> to
    >> BestBuy, rather than an abdication of control over their home.

    > And I agree with most of the non-technical end users there. An ISP provided
    > router does get updates and in case of problems I can call them and

I do not observe ISP provided modems to get updates.

    >> net neutrality debate and the desire my ISPs for a cut of the over-top-pie.
    >> My answer is that the consumer should be in control, and that ISPs need to
    >> get out of the home router business entirely.

    > I agree that customers should be in control, and they are now as in most
    > countries you can choose between an ISP provided routers or buy one at your
    > convenience. I do not see how less choice (only non ISP provided routers)
    > will make this better especially as ISP provided and often managed routers
    > are usually updated and taken care of by the ISP in case of problems.

There are quite a number of services in Canada where the ISP provided
modem/router combo has no way to go into a layer-2 only mode.  Or it's very
hard to figure out, or the ISP disdains all notions of supporting you.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [