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

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Sat, 02 March 2019 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@mtcc.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 0F2A2130FEB for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 16:09:14 -0800 (PST)
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 M5rec4JfrFI3 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 16:09:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtcc.com (mtcc.com [50.0.18.224]) (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 0EF21130FE9 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 16:09:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Michaels-MacBook.local (170-75-133-42.volcanocom.com [170.75.133.42] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mtcc.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id x22098DD008027 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Mar 2019 16:09:09 -0800
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
References: <894b4181-c4ca-5cf1-adba-1c5fcab0d355@cs.tcd.ie> <90A48EC1-C13D-4B9B-9F04-252C0CC87084@fugue.com> <dbe6e19f-84c2-f2eb-b9ab-d085de7c299c@mtcc.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0C50C4@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <ed1e6a2c-b830-07fb-df0d-df6dae96cdd9@mtcc.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 16:09:03 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0C50C4@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/m_Ely9AjpfElH_mOLlQpOLik90g>
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: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 00:09:14 -0000

On 3/1/19 3:49 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>> 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.

Oh, that's interesting. I knew it was getting support on mobile, but 
haven't kept up on what's going on cable/dsl/fiber.


>
> 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.
What I meant is that homenet router protocols are v6 only. At least the 
last time I checked.
> 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).

Yeah, I have that problem with my friends/neighbors.

>
> 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).


Do you know if they deal with differences in the security domains? Or is 
it punted to L3? Like in my example, I might want to let my neighbors 
access my hot tub controller, but not, say, my tv. You can envision the 
same thing with guest/kids nets.


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


Yes, and that's not dependent on v6 afaik.

Mike