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

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Fri, 01 March 2019 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.com>
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 2D8B3130FE2 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:49:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 1_c5XWdZxx78 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:49:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29331130ECD for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:49:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049297.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x21NjKU0032726; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 18:49:14 -0500
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2qyd87a1pp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 01 Mar 2019 18:49:13 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x21NnCMb019727; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 18:49:12 -0500
Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com [135.47.91.178]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x21Nn8Uq019683; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 18:49:08 -0500
Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 26F7F4009E64; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 23:49:08 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.151]) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 1BC8F4009E63; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 23:49:08 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.84]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.151]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 18:49:07 -0500
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: 'Michael Thomas' <mike@mtcc.com>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?
Thread-Index: AQHU0Hd96ZMrInlIeEWd9OXPwmlCeKX3rjeAgAADGID//7kVEA==
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 23:49:06 +0000
Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0C50C4@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <894b4181-c4ca-5cf1-adba-1c5fcab0d355@cs.tcd.ie> <90A48EC1-C13D-4B9B-9F04-252C0CC87084@fugue.com> <dbe6e19f-84c2-f2eb-b9ab-d085de7c299c@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <dbe6e19f-84c2-f2eb-b9ab-d085de7c299c@mtcc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.10.202.228]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-03-01_16:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=599 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903010164
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/WnQLcTlRijdLGYhiyf9mz2S6Xfg>
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: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 23:49:18 -0000

> I would guess that even after 5 years, we still don't have much
> v6 deployment into homes and that's a pretty big problem. 

That's an interesting statement to make. Do you have evidence of that?
https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ shows considerable deployment. I know for a fact that the AT&T wireline network supports IPv6 to 100% of customers. The reason only 61.26% of traffic is IPv6 is *not* due to the ISP not supporting it. It's due to edge networks that don't support. And in this case, it's mostly due to enterprises not supporting. The 61.26% number is heavily weighted towards mass market customers using IPv6, because it was easier to push IPv6 support into managed CE routers.

What I *am* seeing, is a lack of random topology multi-router networks.
While it may be that continued use of IPv4 in home networks is a factor that drives people away from multi-router topologies, I don't think this is the same as saying that lack of IPv6 is a reason people aren't deploying.
I really don't think IPv6 (or even IPv6-only inside the mass market LAN -- which won't be happening for a long time) is a driver for multiple routers.
The biggest driver historically has been to get multiple Wi-Fi access points, to cover more of the premises. But many people resisted even this driver, because devices didn't seamlessly move between APs and the routed interfaces blocked multicast traffic (so you could only cast to your TV if you were on the same AP with the TV).

But Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) has been working to provide a solution for seamless whole home coverage. And from what I can see, I think it's going to be successful. But WFA EasyMesh (release 1) is a tree-topology L2 bridged network. I do think this needs to move towards true mesh (and the reason they haven't is because they haven't yet been properly introduced to an easy method of loop avoidance). 

So if multi-access points was a driver for multiple routers, WFA EasyMesh may very well kill that off as a driver.

But even if the common home network won't have lots of routers, the need for a good naming architecture still exists, IMO.
And the need for good loop avoidance...

This is my personal, individual opinion, if that wasn't obvious.
Barbara