Re: [homenet] draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-01

[Markus Stenberg <[e-mail]>]

> On 2 Dec 2016, at 15.50, Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I've just submitted
> 
>  draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-01
> 
> It should hit the IETF repository soon, in the meantime, my working copy is on
> 
>  https://github.com/jech/babel-drafts/tree/master/draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile
> 
> The major change is the addition of Section 3, which describes how HNCP
> speaks to Babel.  Other than that, I've removed the editorial notes.
> 
> I still have my doubts about REQ5, but I believe that the current
> formulation reflects the consensus attained at IETF-95:

I do not like REQ5. As a SHOULD, perhaps, but MUST seems excessive.

Guest networks without any HNCP / routing traffic are the way to go anyway in my opinion. What happens behind closed doors (= non-guest) is up to the home, I think.

With dynamic categories of interfaces, as long as we do not mandate securing RA/DHCP*, securing routing and HNCP will not help much in the bug picture. (=Anyone can pretend to be uplink and get traffic routed through them anyway). With static categories, if you send HNCP/routing traffic on guest interfaces, you are doing something wrong.

Cheers,

-Markus