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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 24 April 2019 02:09 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 82B8E1200F7 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.435
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 RSU25p9t8JhH for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D94B1200F1 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (ipv6.dooku.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:6::1]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54B391F457 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 02:09:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 16A0D3A6D; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:09:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
to: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <15016.1556055628@dooku.sandelman.ca>
References: <894b4181-c4ca-5cf1-adba-1c5fcab0d355@cs.tcd.ie> <15016.1556055628@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> message dated "Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:40:28 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:09:13 -0400
Message-ID: <2382.1556071753@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/WAhLdoxDpqNhy6JzdDyKaOq_8xc>
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: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 02:09:07 -0000

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    > There is significant effort to isolate IoT devices on seperate L2s via
    > what in the enterprise switch space is called MAC-based-VLANs.  The
    > only devices that "move" in such a network are the laptops and mobile
    > phones, and both could easily take on a variety of mechanisms including
    > things like off-link /128s.

let me clarify two things:

1) the other (IoT) devices could "roam" between access points, but they don't,
   because they are attached to walls, etc.

2) none of the mDNS naming that a flat L2 enables will work because of the firewalling,
   so they need the naming issues fixed in the way that Ted is doing, and
   once that's fixed there is no reason for them to need a flat L2.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-