Re: [homenet] draft-fujiwara-smallest-homenet-01
fujiwara@jprs.co.jp Mon, 29 October 2012 10:20 UTC
Return-Path: <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
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 D658621F85B2 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 03:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
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=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f9TCAsUeCsk9 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 03:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from off-send02.tyo.jprs.co.jp (off-send02.tyo.jprs.co.jp [IPv6:2001:df0:8:17::20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89F921F85B1 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 03:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp (off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp [172.18.8.32]) by off-send02.tyo.jprs.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9TAKlOR030689; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:20:48 +0900
X-AuditID: ac120820-b7fd46d0000058b8-80-508e587fbe61
Received: from localhost (off-cpu04.tyo.jprs.co.jp [172.18.4.14]) by off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id D5.E3.22712.F785E805; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:20:47 +0900 (JST)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:20:47 +0900
Message-Id: <20121029.192047.258110609.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
To: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
From: fujiwara@jprs.co.jp
In-Reply-To: <23679.1351011484@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <20121023.194755.229760265.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> <23679.1351011484@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3.50 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrBIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsWyRoiFT7c+oi/AYPVDTYv3iw6xWPQc6md3 YPJYsuQnk0fLnD3MAUxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBlvv4oWfOOuOHTtGUsD43rOLkZODgkBE4lv cxYwQdhiEhfurWcDsYUETjJKnFrtBmKzCGhLbJ2xhRnE5hWwlljT0wpUz8EhIiAp8WZpFUiY WUBEYuvH02BjhAUsJZbdWwpWzgZUsvlzK5jNKWAssfHGT0aI8SkS37u6odbaSZx4voIVZCSv gKDE3x3CECO1JHpmPGaHsOUltr+dwzyBkX8WQtUsJFWzkFQtYGRexSiTn5amW5yal1Kcm25g qFdSma+XVVBUrJcMojcxgkOQQ2EH44xTBocYBTgYlXh4XX/0BgixJpYVV+YeYpTkYFIS5b0S 3hcgxJeUn1KZkVicEV9UmpNafIhRgoNZSYR3KTdQOW9KYmVValE+TEqag0VJnPf42R1+QgLp iSWp2ampBalFMFl1Dg6B37u2Gkux5OXnpSpJ8EaBzBcsSk1PrUjLzClBqGTi4ATZwwO0JzgM qIa3uCAxtzgzHSJ/ilGV40z3vIeMQmCDpMR5uUCKBECKMkrz4Oa8YhQH+kyYNxhkDQ8w+cBN eAU0nAlouA4fyBPFJYkIKakGxrWJYhxvvk+bpO3osKJolYvxj603e94vNKm3nbx17Ub7qbNk o1TvTm1yPchdspVdO+iWsl3cnvQ/e0+Ype1LrC8yWZ+5+4XHnmZBgwW+QquX5f+MfiByZ7uW XH+Rx96Jvy0+Xiy+Uvck6Ng9P4vluzPnLDjT+zr32NbEKxOt1KU4fE0cG5IUmZVYijMSDbWY i4oTAe/n6lT7AgAA
Cc: homenet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] draft-fujiwara-smallest-homenet-01
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 29 Oct 2012 10:20:52 -0000
> From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> > fujiwara> I submitted draft-fujiwara-smallest-homenet-01 > fujiwara> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fujiwara-smallest-homenet-01.txt > > fujiwara> Although access control for home servers is very important, > fujiwara> managements and setups of access controls are difficult for most of > fujiwara> users. "Connecting a new node to the same link" is > fujiwara> easiest way of > fujiwara> access control. One of solutions is to use link-local > fujiwara> addresses for > fujiwara> communications of clients and servers. > > fujiwara> Is it in a scope of homenet WG ? > fujiwara> Does anyone have interests for the idea ? > > It seems to me like it's already an accepted part of the homenet arch. > There will be ULAs and GUAs, and ULAs will be preferred for local > communication. Thanks. What I would like to say is that - Access control in homenet servers is important - There are no/few experts in many homenets. - Easy configuration is required for homenet servers. # For example, link based access control. My idea is that by using Link-local address positively, the communication in a link and the communication to the Internet can be separated, and a design becomes easy. (We don't need new protocols.) After submitting this draft, I considered new idea to set default ACL as the same net (/64) of servers. -- Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>