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

RayH <v6ops@globis.net> Mon, 07 October 2019 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <v6ops@globis.net>
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 BF10C1200DB; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 08:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.223
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.223 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.377, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, MISSING_MIMEOLE=1.899, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 bi9PwWhhCGPy; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 08:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from globis01.globis.net (mail.globis.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f15:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9A71200B3; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 08:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8AD40109; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:00:22 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at globis01.globis.net
Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZlZf0GgYdpD7; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:00:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.15] (h9041.upc-h.chello.nl [62.194.9.41]) (Authenticated sender: v6ops@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64AD8400AF; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:00:20 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 17:00:19 +0200
Message-ID: <13214054-d457-44b1-9284-e6295af802fd@email.android.com>
X-Android-Message-ID: <13214054-d457-44b1-9284-e6295af802fd@email.android.com>
In-Reply-To: <F18CA210-ECF7-49BA-8B90-9D70E7EAF6C8@fugue.com>
From: RayH <v6ops@globis.net>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Markus Stenberg <homenet@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/wMWpoEv0e2rNxGTVGIO-bVczTOg>
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: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 15:00:26 -0000



On 7 Oct 2019 16:37, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 2019, at 9:15 AM, RayH <v6ops@globis.net> wrote:
My preferred path would be to look at why Homenet hasn't been rolled out.

If it's because manufacturers aren't updating boxes at all, or even ipv6 at all as per my local internet non-service provider, another standard ain't going to solve that.

So is there concensus on what's broken? And what needs fixing?

I think it’s a lot simpler than that: they don’t have to do it, so they don’t.   There’s no upside for them in adding complexity to the network, and that’s what this looks like.   In order for homenet to see widespread adoption, there has to be a problem it solves that lots of home users have.

Why does an ISP have to add complexity to their network in order to support Homenet?

Because they want to own and operate a 7084 cpe router on the customer's premises?

If they draw the service delivery point at an Ethernet isolation LAN that provides IA PD, RA, and pure unfiltered native IPv6 transport, it's arguably simpler for them than managing a full cpe including local DHCP, DNS resolution, NAT, wireless.....

My latest business class connection only supports ds-lite (ipv4 only, and no plans for IPv6) and not even any DHCP. So there are providers that are looking to redraw the boundary.

TBH, one of the reasons that I am not in favor of ND proxy is precisely that it kicks this can even father down the road.   IoT network transit and similar applications are a clear use case for Homenet; building a solution that’s going in entirely the wrong evolutionary direction seems like an unfortunate plan.

I agree wholeheartedly on that.

Regards,