From nobody Thu Dec 3 11:08:46 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B163A074B for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:08:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.887 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NO_DNS_FOR_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 OGB1EB7g_MpL for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:08:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk1-x731.google.com (mail-qk1-x731.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::731]) (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 C26773A0769 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:08:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk1-x731.google.com with SMTP id i199so3177453qke.5 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:08:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=T314dZOcDBM8ecEOeJIn3BZE0zaFZN0j/Ho6kuLgcCE=; b=K3gn2KeJ45/1MfkrbFhUSJL8bWkpkpZtWT4bMMw3asSPk2N5+58DNZuI2Gc4iEq5AN ea7PGbPiGuRfas9YxaX4FdwTQjuEmZn1MvR4Xc3p8z2nytaaDPGaH9zPBUxVhTxmALn2 BV/XL3vl55UCfDcjJeQDPWNmMDLzJt5Vi5B+fGn3W7tNWhpxo3LmtJRwKkJWHOI7Lqiw swUmPCm3Exj3cyMwF0kF1QpFtXaPFq2FBBDYQjso12i0f/5l5wyd2gofMZC/MfVo/SNF sI7SbTc65/Xcfl9oyJxAVAjJNRkQkfEBsis0l6MJLOqgCbT4l7ItRfkkHWw+VS0if+ml suJw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=T314dZOcDBM8ecEOeJIn3BZE0zaFZN0j/Ho6kuLgcCE=; b=Y7OHUXSQVcJyvYHczadiX+mFJAGOrZqlzFF42pcQHHQZRmL94HHBzIwxVtk67HTNep EiYelQhaS3gt4w4tVUs+uhlltNlN9a6nMmjm7nTleP5xG+EJKs5qtnZkkTdEVgS/KSRo jUsRMsU8opVXT9DSdUA4qBMVIRji8n9VbNngmCZhC94KZWGhJcUz0eme9LbWDzf2qs88 HC7jC0Vn9CSAjP3udJhNXAmfSBDArDyPxGZsHBnKPDgtCv+cqEqq57iTe+6b0GN1FFj7 qzQE9hiPsJ9ZsBCi84Jdka/FxBK8obg0UxDDOd1RzWqLAL/Y50WXebCvBYj+IqdfOnsS Gqnw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532+9SXdYamUo0v4CysyyLg7d2epwOwoIukM9py5bzUJCEyOz0HQ 1DGbZNZvwkppCttZelqmU/3cySpCFTkJ0VWV X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxlfq/FsfvelDkpIAZa7KtYW/qXc3KeC45esFn+0XM6E48QHf/ZGvwGn+sP0U1cPg2aA4oNJw== X-Received: by 2002:a37:5156:: with SMTP id f83mr4506037qkb.197.1607022518481; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mithrandir.lan (c-24-91-177-160.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [24.91.177.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5sm2058632qtp.55.2020.12.03.11.08.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:08:38 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\)) From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: <3988.1607021519@localhost> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 14:08:35 -0500 Cc: Toerless Eckert , 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>, iotops@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <695953.1606952552@dooku> <20201203174901.GW44833@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <3988.1607021519@localhost> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Iotops] Automatically connecting to stub networks... X-BeenThere: iotops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IOT Operations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 19:08:42 -0000 If we were to stack PD, that would not be a stub network, although I = think it=E2=80=99s an interesting increment. But the way to do it is = with DHCPv6 relays on the (no longer) stub routers. Otherwise you have a = tree balancing problem that=E2=80=99s totally unnecessary. And you still = need Babel or OSPF or something to manage routing. I=E2=80=99d be happy to have a co-author, if you are interested, = Michael. :) > On Dec 3, 2020, at 1:51 PM, Michael Richardson = wrote: >=20 >=20 > Toerless Eckert wrote: >> - For example: Why not simply start with DHCP-PD ? IMHO, every home = router getting >> a prefix via DHCP-PD from a service provider is a provider of such a = stub network. >> Of course, service discovery as you expect does usually not work in = that environment, >> so that would need to be added. >=20 > While there is a CableLabs spec that argues for stacked DHCPv6-PD (and = it was > presented in Homenet a few years back), to date, I'm aware of no = deployed > home routers that operate a DHCPv6-PD server on their southbound = interface. >=20 > Conceptually it's simple to implement. > Architecturally there are some who thinks it is gross, and some who = think > it's brilliant. I'm still sitting on the fence myself. >=20 > But, fundamentally, the issue Ted is trying to address is enabling > communications within the Home between layer-2s that can not, or = should not, > be bridged. >=20 > I agree with your other suggestions for re-organization. > I have some ideas about how I would write this document. >=20 > -- > Michael Richardson . o O ( IPv6 I=C3=B8T = consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20