Re: [homenet] homenet "no host changes" assumption and DNS

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > number of other technology people from various companies, and one thing
    > we determined was we could not decide on a definition of "the
    > Internet". So I don't know what definition you use. I do know that by
    > my definition, my home network is not part of "the Internet", and I

My definition for capital-Internet:
   The set of networks which are directly reachable ("icmp ping") and are
   enumerated in the "public" BGP4 tables.

So, in traditional v4 land, only your edge router was part of The Internet by
this definition.  IPv6, Teredo, and PCP/UPnP changed this to include more
and more hosts that are behind the router.

Of course, your router might have a policy preventing internal hosts being
directly reachable.  (RFC6408 suggests that policy I think)
For instance, one might require some kind VPN to be established in order to
reach, in which case it is not "directly"

    > don't ever want it to be part of "the Internet". I do not want it to be
    > assimilated. This doesn't make my home network a lower class network,
    > IMO. It makes it a distinct and different network. I agree we have
    > ended up with multiple networks. I disagree they are of different
    > classes. They are, simply, differen!  t.

I think that a lot of people in this group want to make sure that your
network (whether or not you think of it as part of the "Internet"), remains
your network, and does not become an extension of the ISPs network.

    > I've spent many years focused on understanding and meeting the needs of
    > consumers and their home networks. I believe my view of my home network
    > is consistent with how most people think of their home network. If you
    > ask an average person whether their home network is part of the
    > Internet, I believe they will say "no".

I think that it depends a lot on how they use it, and what kind of education
they have had.  Most of my older relatives think in terms of computers,
and Internet.  The Internet connects their computers, they don't have a home
network.   That's a result of ISP "propaganda", in my opinion.

    >> So, the reason we can't expect host changes for naming is because any
    >> plan for internetworking that starts, "First, upgrade all the hosts,"
    >> is doomed.  That hasn't worked since 1983.

    > I have no expectation of updating *all* hosts. But I do think it may be
    > reasonable to expect "if a host wants to participate in the brand new
    > homenet naming architecture, it must be updated". There's a difference
    > between *all* hosts and a conditional set of hosts. I'm aware of many

+1

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [