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

"Ralf Weber" <dns@fl1ger.de> Sat, 02 March 2019 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <dns@fl1ger.de>
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 70B6F126C7E for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 00:15:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 JeTWrzFoYfm5 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 00:15:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.guxx.net (smtp.guxx.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:a0:322c::25:42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2195C129508 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 00:15:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix, from userid 107) id 5961E5F4081C; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 09:15:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [172.19.154.103] (p4FC2185E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.194.24.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC2425F4030F; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 09:15:04 +0100 (CET)
From: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: homenet@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 09:15:03 +0100
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.4r5594)
Message-ID: <3A3467BE-8E01-405D-B5D6-0497DE1ACE26@fl1ger.de>
In-Reply-To: <4803.1551485670@localhost>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/SfdyTDrNYhhIkhl-5AtZoQaUFKk>
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 08:15:11 -0000

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.

> 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 they 
will
fix it. I currently experience that myself as my DSL modem (not ISP 
supplied)
is currently experiencing problems, which the ISP provided router does 
not
have. So I now have to research what the actual problem is, which is 
something
most non technical users wouldn’t be even capable of doing.

Also I’ve seen way more intrusion of my home and privacy by over the 
top
providers or IoT devices than I have seen by my ISP. I know this might 
be
different in different parts of the world, which is why we should not 
take
either view for granted.

> It's clearly not in
> Amazon/Google/Facebook/Intel/Samsung/insert-another-IoT-conglomerate's
> interest to be told by ISPs what their products may or may not do.
> This is an ongoing tussle that that relates in some ways (but not all) 
> to the
> 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.

> Home router vendors (or the
> service companies they create) should provide first-level support for 
> issues,
> and actual real connectivity issues should be submitted 
> electronically.
Well I wish I had a pony, but sorry this is not how it works. The 
primary
driver for most people when they buy home routers is price and I doubt 
that
these mostly Asia based companies could support my wider family with a
german speaking hotline. My ISP can though…

On Stephens original question I am between 3 and 4, as I mostly care 
from
an intellectual standpoint, as in man it would be great if that would 
work,
rather then believe we will actually get devices widely deployed, but I 
for
sure would like to play with some in my free time.

So long
-Ralf
—--
Ralf Weber