Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 04 October 2019 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 4E84412011E for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 06:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 7OAA9BlQXrqf for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 06:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x534.google.com (mail-pg1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::534]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1491312011A for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 06:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x534.google.com with SMTP id q7so3711925pgi.12 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 06:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=mPSQWmPk5aVefE1U1btiiLPoffh7X/s8bwMs4r8tZu8=; b=SwDUb912uNjOc7OVNu2MOEfVUWgMXxWoyJlpWiLqCu0SUKRTng7vJwNf/faShAOX57 6vyJVCoKRQJeE27hKItTqd7GPj2/TKShDCPpSP+1T/ccptaBlVLztD2Mvzzy99MMgPoh RgzXTigZkdq3exl+kemjr8nP0v57oF72SSHBh8sAsysRLaM0AMY6QzhdGgdeDnS5nAc8 2KnAKYwZXc5h/en/J1k7JqTgSpHyyKf44o4jMCpclC+/ttaWd0BK/uIQWuk3/rULRyN/ 7YEPHgbh/ctbWjclNqVKOgyCR27bQ53z0KKHkDN0njBLUbvJSTbGIkkqsysERv14p3nS tZGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=mPSQWmPk5aVefE1U1btiiLPoffh7X/s8bwMs4r8tZu8=; b=eIbCVlpKN2lVpu1uouO6COv7C0U4aaRZYNUAu716xTyw2tR7wykfTUYe6SvYrYM9gs SCmUd1KCkcI/AbfR6N72OyX4I467Cz4iPHccyb9QMcj0wqceMYT2/osm3ImkcRPuiwqa du9K2cCfbM+k0bH3a6HWGlrHf/MA74jIdRKagOwbd9bN9vhylMJONREwv3KLQnasnIm6 bmoIaCBazg227eyDfRCUN5ZZ3Q9qdWuFbuFt18ML9BM6iL4oz8Y4JUW+tDhAsvIFiOi+ 0bDeyDgwqah1WAAEjinV+dws/pFLe6xgXWhP7gPRmEjvOlLbrMv8vxvbKVpHstl5BQXw zJag==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUhKodjRTYLtGgfitSp2SJby7UuzUcZppVyIm1u259l5uR0CvxY 9rxS4hNxcBu9/XqwJeAVnwZ0Ge8CoiE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyL6xnWYffPiYX4PSH7V6dSVjQ/qXddrg1/lqMOTBHMGTkSQr6NkRUviuAYvK15iBt9QWPTQg==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:7d81:: with SMTP id y123mr17214398pfc.133.1570194372399; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 06:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.2.221] ([12.217.162.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s97sm7919059pjc.4.2019.10.04.06.06.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Oct 2019 06:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <5F0D2E3D-BE20-4421-8A37-E81E6B93B3A5@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6FE27B12-6E93-40D2-88D0-65310032DC42"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3600\))
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 06:06:09 -0700
In-Reply-To: <A52F076F-817D-4807-8CD6-280C2040AEBF@employees.org>
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, Markus Stenberg <homenet@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
References: <56255ECF-9002-4440-BA0D-665EFC4BA9C6@fugue.com> <F638F635-9A1C-409E-BDB8-C00DF00A64C8@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1910040752050.968@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A52F076F-817D-4807-8CD6-280C2040AEBF@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3600)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/jYwfHX_qgg85trv3ghwIsby-ftQ>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...
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, 04 Oct 2019 13:06:15 -0000

On Oct 4, 2019, at 5:10 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> Homenet has solved the problem of self-configuring networks in arbitrary topologies.

If that were true, I wouldn’t be asking this question.  We’re still chugging along, but we don’t have something that nay router vender could even consider shipping right now.  There isn’t enough participation in homenet anymore for us to really iron out the kinks.  Certainly if I could count o homenet being present in routers in the home, we wouldn’t be having this conversation! :)

> Unless someone goes to lengths describing exactly how this is supposed to work, the idea of "simplifying" the homenet solution sounds like a recipe for failure.

I tend to agree, but wasn’t proposing that.   I was really just trying to solve the very specific problem of how I do IPv6 routing in the case I described, given the hardware that is likely to be present in the home.

> How are you going to tell the customers that you can only plug in devices in particular topologies and in particular ways.

The customer already has a router.   Suppose I want to add a router with a bunch of devices behind it, and  I know the router I’m adding will never have a second layer behind it.   Can I get it to work?   That’s the problem.

> - single router and bridging (7084)

If it doesn’t filter RA, and I control the second router, I’m okay, right?

> - arbitrary topology plug and play (homenet)

Yes, that’s homenet.   It would really help if folks who think homenet is done would try to deploy it in their home using OpenWRT and see how it goes.   Seriously.   This is not a solved problem.   We’re maybe 50-60% of the way there at this point.   I’ve been trying to make progress on this ever since HNCP was declared done, and occasionally get collaboration, and indeed we may be begining to make progress agan, but we could definitely use more participation if there are folks in 6man who want this to work and imagine that it already does.

> - manually configured (meaning ansible, scripts or whatever automation solution external to the routers themselves).

Yech.   That’s not an option.  :]