IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] disconnected homenets (was: #2 Regarding isolated networks)

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mon, 23 June 2014 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9021B2971 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.872
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham
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 avTra088sM_h for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E4F31B285C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s5NFHhPK000897; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:17:43 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk s5NFHhPK000897
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1403536663; bh=RyxxNmztcbRXfcJmCgUVN0sBo4k=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=ljtKs0RmrPEqZNVtSqrMllIGI+9/HOoOSgpG8daBTItFYgA5hvrdXqHE+UizZYEEK R7QVXdAMx6t2UrHCLrqDHl3vnEX13/4DLNYa4gxKMsK0hAahWkEG9YhqroqkhPzcIp idRu/5Z9D7ONykzx+vRRII3nh1uv8j8tAi/v5ITA=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:401]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:68da]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id q5MGHg0546045361nC ret-id none; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:17:43 +0100
Received: from dhcp-162-206.wireless.soton.ac.uk (dhcp-162-206.wireless.soton.ac.uk [152.78.162.206] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s5NFHg1X012315 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:17:42 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <53A84023.1060008@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:18:15 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|7c46efd98967914b02ed58be3ebddf5cq5MGHg03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|679AE942-6F18-4398-B490-E3B4BB0143AA@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <1401141423.52956.YahooMailNeo@web162206.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5383C2CF.6040205@gmail.com> <1401230263.69077.YahooMailNeo@web162206.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <53854B03.8040702@gmail.com> <1401312298.99614.YahooMailNeo@web162205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <53A84023.1060008@gmail.com> <679AE942-6F18-4398-B490-E3B4BB0143AA@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-smtpf-Report: sid=q5MGHg054604536100; tid=q5MGHg0546045361nC; client=relay,forged,no_ptr,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=2:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: s5NFHhPK000897
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/7XZyJvjXuYtSj1gD__VvGBQc-hs
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] disconnected homenets (was: #2 Regarding isolated networks)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:17:53 -0000

On 23 Jun 2014, at 15:56, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Old email, sorry.
> 
> Le 28/05/2014 23:24, Mark ZZZ Smith a écrit :
> [...]
>> The use case I like to imagine is a home user streaming a video from
>> their NAS to their TV over their internal network. That should use
>> ULAs so that a failure of their Internet connection/Global addressing
>> has no impact on watching their movie. If the movie failed because
>> the Internet connection/global addressing failed, that user will call
>> the ISP's helpdesk. But why should it fail! The home users internal
>> network is fine, it is only external connectivity that has failed.
> 
> I hope this requirement is considered in the homenet architecture discussion.

It is already covered, e.g. in 3.4.2.

Tim

> 
> Too often the in-home Internet-disconnected network can not work internally.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> People might argue that enterprise networks are different and they
>> are - they're simpler! Enterprise networks have technical staff on
>> hand that can troubleshoot networks and resolve faults. If you can
>> make IPv6 work seamlessly for home networks and their non-technical
>> "operators", you've solved the harder problem. Since enterprise
>> networks also value the same things home networks do - seamless
>> operation, robustness against failure, stable internal connectivity,
>> you've solved most of the enterprise network problems too.
>> 
>>> It doesn't conform to RFC 7084 either, which clearly
>> 
>>> states that "prefix(es) (and ULA prefix if configured...)" must be
>>> advertised.
>>> 
>> 
>> The precursor to 7084 (6204) was in development at the time, but it
>> wouldn't have helped because they were ignoring our feedback.
>> (Another CPE vendor was much better and almost too keen - they were
>> sending me new software to test within 24 hours after reporting an
>> IPv6 issue.)
>> 
>> Regards, Mark.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email