Re: [homenet] New version draft-mglt-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-02.txt

On Jul 15, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi> wrote:

> On 15.7.2014, at 21.35, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:
>>> I assume you mean that we need to recommend a default policy and also
>>> document the range of other policies that the end user might choose to
>>> use.
>> 
>> No, I just mean that Markus not wanting anything published in DNS is
>> policy, and that's completely independent of whether we want to define
>> a mechanism.  I have no opinion on either point.
>> 
>> All I know is that if we want to define a mechanism, then the mechanism
>> should be compatible with the worldview of HNCP, which includes things
>> such as multiple internal links and multiple CPEs.
> 
> The mechanism should not be tied to the particular ISPs either, except perhaps optionally.
> 
> In my case, I have 2 upstream ISPs, neither of which officially even admits IPv6 exists, but I _would_ like to publish my home v6 zone somewhere.. *sigh*
> 
> So to summarize:
> 
> - mechanism to publish either single DNS updates or zones would be nice to have (possibly with tie-in to service discovery)
> 
> - with policy bits thrown in 
> 
> and some sort of possible zero-conf use, with help of co-operating ISP perhaps, but _not_ requiring the first-hop ISP to be the only party you interact with.
> 
> The ‘homenet’ policy stuff may be actually relatively extensive in the end, although with some sort of reasonable zeroconf defaults.
> In this case, policy stuff should apply to what’s advertised (and in which scope), and where it can be reached from (firewalling either with accept rules, or PCP-derived holes).
> 
> (Hmm. We don’t seem to have any drafts on policy or management yet.)

There is some dependency on security for these.

Mark
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -Markus
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet