IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 24 October 2017 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@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 C099C138BDB for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 07:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 TFcrWz9-q8lX for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 07:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4257B13EF48 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 07:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F4B200E4; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 10:44:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A32B80D36; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 10:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
cc: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BA6C5D18-7EB4-4571-99CF-E09AFE8DE834@consulintel.es>
References: <80D10C70-9411-48EE-8189-87E9401D7F22@consulintel.es> <FFB4541F-0BDB-4D5F-B6BB-647EFD0FE27E@google.com> <BA6C5D18-7EB4-4571-99CF-E09AFE8DE834@consulintel.es>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 10:44:04 -0400
Message-ID: <9954.1508856244@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/amSxNd7Jj5_fCYP1Jtx7pULDq_s>
Subject: Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:44:08 -0000

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
    > Hi James,

    > I included HNCP in RFC7084-bis following your request :-(

Where is the document being revised?

RFC7084 turns out to be a document which is both requirements on CE routers,
but also implicitely requirements on ISPs to provide things to compliant CE
routers.

I would like to have either both explicitely in an RFC7084bis, or have two
documents.

I'd sure like to get some of our (HOMENET) DNS forward/reverse requirements into the
RFC7084bis-ISP-requirements.

    > So, concentrating in homenet.

    > Do, repeating my 2nd questions, do we believe we need a specific
    > document HOMENET document to suggest to include in CE, or to say how to
    > do it, or whatever?

I'm just not parsing this question, btw.

    >     Now, the questions I’ve for this WG is:

    >     1) Do you think I should mention other homenet documents ?  2) Do
    > you think we should have a specific homenet document requiring the
    > support of homenet for IPv6 CE routers, so for example this becomes an
    > integral part of testing by ISPs, IPv6 Ready Logo, or even RFQs, etc.?

    >     I will be happy to work in a homenet document if we believe that 2
    > above is needed. Anyone else interested?

I think that we need some additional text in 7084bis that permits a
7084bis-only device to not screw up a HOMENET network.  I don't have specific
examples at the moment, but I recall we had various discussions in the past
about how things might work or fail to work.


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email