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

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 07 October 2019 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9621200E9; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 12:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WFmJMgsaW9Xb; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 12:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94A8512008A; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 12:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i76so1695070pgc.0; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 12:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YrsXqFHjTN9bZqpPJW7gLx+jIhJeOkYRczwRif1Ztms=; b=NJl0LR7gFpjX8qbrOaWehhigtfUesuNlbrSkfTRMrhSCSbi9PMG74fnAmCyiKYldLq mB1e/3nD08FOodn0gd8GwS19xrWaHmS+tOemmSvhKs9WqzRCPyLZJ87U+0aRogy/1JGI ciAhzy3xF1DEOHC3ErLVrD5L7eLkuIY8CdkeenlcqbDJOr0F3wqe+FT2ns2QByqc+PUt aEvANnsfwxTH7OIMm7jFDYeseZG8tds9c7LGGKXuFb3kc1S2WtIgG89n731qh8BSHRbe LeH1DgKbRsYxY+maxGWl7+yt5sl6u7d4uzlV5yy9AhR0ESjfFz+ON6uytJws578tdLAb /Qzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=YrsXqFHjTN9bZqpPJW7gLx+jIhJeOkYRczwRif1Ztms=; b=QHWs1dN2FB98/bIALr8aIaiZjvatvjcLc/WCFMZS1l4r/cg7ykJ0138Hhsmk5ORld8 lfyJFJwIZJuHZqggwBEmZr5MemSKGfEYty2pX0vSxo8JVkx2Ay5ZkTPuTif9sibwqNTF +YQ1OrFejKe+lQhvbHcP63wnOWngDnZmSbVC02GOZXTxLMoYtbYZoxIeDk1xCZiRl64I Wnq/tQwg2IoS8Rxj4Tcl4BerkTYILAMqIoKYkADqjJyRpvgNeuvL7AoWLFnPUyN5Tzv5 KUY2cFps6PB2CQAWV6hBOF6YEcBJCgQi67uvA+yo2ps7Uiy9lwgBFsKTeHqo2WAlCATx R3RQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVHCqISMIZ5HPqLJOiaEEsUoK9Y4etXp4b28fHC+S33vHjL1STq Cvtef5DiIOPvfIq8D30S/ErhPH+v
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxmj2xQJ7R3Jmdu6+k/NDBCsKxtHqkb3OAxNRItTz8WH+GhdgCm51QDwPf+PuLzYgOOBu4LtA==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9d8e:: with SMTP id f14mr34994222pfq.217.1570478038765; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 12:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 202sm18558893pfu.161.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Oct 2019 12:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: Michael Richardson <>, Mark Smith <>
Cc: 6MAN <>, Markus Stenberg <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:53:55 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:54:02 -0000

On 07-Oct-19 22:49, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Mark Smith <> wrote:
>     > Perhaps ANIMA is an alternative? It has seemed to me that home networks
>     > might be just a more specific case of autonomic networks.
>     > For example, they've been defining a Generic Autonomic Signalling
>     > Protocol (GRASP).
> GRASP has some overlap with HNCP, but HNCP isn't really the issue.
> Homenet has a routing protocol (BABEL).  It was going to be OSPFv3, and we'd
> add the information flooding that HNCP wound up doing into OSPFv3, but that
> "didn't work" and the WG (mysteriously) abandonned that idea.
> ANIMA's GRASP is also not a routing protocol: ANIMA builds an overlap control
> layer with IP over IPsec over IPv6LL tunnels, and runs RPL (RFC6550) as
> the routing protocol for the control plane.  While the resulting ACP shares
> some properties with the desired HOMENET routing goals, it's not the same
> thing at all.

No, it isn't. I didn't have time to reply fully yesterday.

First: when ANIMA was originally chartered, we took care to avoid overlap
and interference with HOMENET. In particular, ANIMA assumes there is some
degree of professional management of the network, which autonomic functions
are expected to enhance and simplify. Also they will probably do things
(like policy-driven decision taking) that are not really expected in
a home network.

Second: GRASP is not competing with HNCP. That's analyzed in
(GRASP is an approved draft, stuck waiting for missing references).

Third: If there was a desire to use the ANIMA work for homenets
or unmanaged small office networks, there would be work to do.
As Michael says, we'd need to adapt the autonomic control plane
accordingly. And then some autonomic service agents would need to
be written to fulfill, guess what, the HOMENET requirements
implied by RFC 7368. For example, an agent to perform address
assignment and an agent to configure the dataplane routing protocol.