Re: [homenet] routing requirements

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[e-mail]>]

 

 

See how a network bridge/hub cause a problem in the home network.   It's
one thing that a Joe SixPack, or Grandma has a network bridge  behind
their CE router and the devices in the home are connected to the hub.  I
have personally seen a home with two broadband modems that were
connected to a hub that looped DAD messages back to the SP that totally
hosed the SP network interface for broadband IPv6 services.   See the
Introduction section of the following draft.  The second example is the
problem I speak of with the hub.

 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01

 

Thus anything homenet designs, do assume a home user can have a hub
anywhere in the network and protocols have to be designed for such a
network.  

 

Hemant

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Howard, Lee
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 5:26 PM
To: Samita Chakrabarti; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [homenet] routing requirements

 

Can you describe some scenarios which would cause a prefix to change, in
which applications break in ways that are unacceptable?  All of the ones
I can think of would be cases where I would expect a session to drop,
but I'm sure that's a lack of creativity on my part.

 

Lee

 

From: Samita Chakrabarti [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 5:08 PM
To: Howard, Lee; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: routing requirements

 

Hello Howard,

 

Thank you very much for the summary of messages.

 

A comment on item 12:

12.  Prefix stability? 

 

SC>  I expect that 'Prefix Stability' is a requirement at home or small
offices. Without prefix stability some of the applications will suddenly
break when the old prefix expires and the new prefix becomes effective.

 

And question to the wg:

 

8.      Support for multiple upstream networks is a requirement.

g.      Source address selection is out of scope.  And should be solved
by rfc3484, with longest prefix match (whether ULA or walled garden).
Choosing which address to use to look up the destination address is out
of scope.

 

SC> Is the expectation from homenet wg that all hosts will implement RFC
3484 ?

Do the current home IPv6 host products support RFC 3484 ? [ I don't
think so ]  So the host implementation change should be required if a
host has to support multiple prefixes or I might be missing something?

 

 

Thanks,

-Samita

 

 

________________________________

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Howard, Lee
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:32 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [homenet] routing requirements

I've caught up on some 300 messages about routing.  Here are the
requirements I've gleaned.  Question marks are unclear to me, please
help.

 

1.      Homenet router requirements

2.      When evaluating a solution, discuss whether it provides for:

3.      Reachability between all nodes in the home network.

a.       Links may be Ethernet, WiFi, MoCA, or any other; test all
solutions against mutliple L2 types.

4.      Border detection.  

a.       Border may be upstream ISP, or may be a device that is a
gateway to SmartGrid devices, e.g. a controller that speaks RPL to
802.15.4 and foo to home net.  Or there may be no border, if no external
connection has been established.  

b.      Must be able to find "up" (a path to the Internet), but must not
be dependent on "up" (Internet connectivity) existing for intra-home
reachability.

c.       May be discovered by routing protocol, or other means.

5.      Robust to routers being moved/added/removed/renumbered

a.       Convergence time a few minutes or less.

6.      No configuration required.

a.       We might tolerate? a single password being entered on each
device.  Discuss.

7.      Best-path is a non-requirement.

8.      Support for multiple upstream networks is a requirement.

a.       Including wireless offload, video-only, and split-tunnel VPN
scenarios.  

b.      With separate routers to each.  Not multihomed off the same
router.

c.       Prefix delegated from all ISPs (upstreams).

d.      ISP A is default.

e.       With only traffic destined to ISP B's prefix using that link.

f.       With a backup default to ISP B, if desired.  What is default
condition?

g.      Source address selection is out of scope.  And should be solved
by rfc3484, with longest prefix match (whether ULA or walled garden).
Choosing which address to use to look up the destination address is out
of scope.

9.      Cannot assume hierarchical prefix delegation in the home (at
least, not unless the WG develops such a solution).

10.  A host with mutliple upstream paths to the same destination should
be able to use another in case on fails. 

11.  Prevent looping.

12.  Prefix stability?  

13.  Lightweight (cheap) implementation.

Let me know if I've missed, or mistated, anything.

 

Lee

 

 

________________________________

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject
to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken
in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently
delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.