From jason.weil@twcable.com Tue Aug 2 04:39:09 2011 Return-Path: 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 D166D21F8DD5; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 04:39:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.019 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.444, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NRKUgv5-RsQh; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 04:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdpipgw02.twcable.com (cdpipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.59.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA60121F8DD1; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 04:39:08 -0700 (PDT) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.12 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,306,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="242689659" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.12]) by cdpipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 02 Aug 2011 07:36:46 -0400 Received: from PRVPEXVS04.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.29]) by PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.12]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 07:39:17 -0400 From: "Weil, Jason" To: Ray Hunter , Philip Homburg , "homenet@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 07:39:15 -0400 Thread-Topic: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AcxRCM+EqZcKs4krQfiVXmQz5shxJQ== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4E37CD7C.8000403@globis.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.0.0.100825 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:39:10 -0000 Ray, I also agree that requirements and use cases seem the next logical step. I'= d be willing to document the ones that we are contemplating. It would be us= eful to have someone more familiar with DSL/Fiber residential deployments d= o so there as well. As has already been mentioned, this is a great conversation but it really b= elongs on the Homenet list at this point (copying that list in case people = are not following both). Jason From: Ray Hunter > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 06:12:12 -0400 To: Philip Homburg > Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router I think the earlier suggestion of Lee Howard to capture requirements for a = home network first is a very good one. In the current discussion, I don't think it's fully defined yet who operate= s your "generic home router" and under what conditions: whether the home ro= uter is one operated by the user onto a shared bridged IPv6 access network,= or whether the home router spec will be used by an ISP for purchasing and = operating the home router, and which then also has to take into account the= user's requirements for more than one local LAN in the home, or whether th= ere are 2 home router devices (one operated by the user and one operated by= the ISP), or even more home router devices that also route between IPv6 pr= efixes. Appropriate behaviour of an interface will depend very much on the manageme= nt and deployment scenario. In IPv4 + NAT that was pretty much irrelevant. The outbound path and addres= s could be learned by acting as a DHCPv4 client and the reverse path was "l= earned" via NAT. And each cascaded device could in turn act as a DHCPv4 ser= ver for its downstream neighbors. A simple "outbound only" firewall rarely = did harm either. So simple cascading pretty much always worked without any = configuration at all. What if a user stacks multiple home routers in IPv6? Do you assume / enforce a tree structure for a home network? Do you assume / enforce a single-homed ISP model? I know cascaded PD has been discussed many times in the past, but is there = an RFC for how it should operate in practice? RFC5877 says "Renumbering Still Needs Work" So back to requirements, I think a list might conceivably consist of: 1) a home router should automatically discover its neighbors on a per port = basis. 2) a home router should able to automatically detect whether each neighbor = is in the same management domain or not 3) a home router should control peering in a secure manner 4) a home router should automatically learn prefixes and interface addresse= s (NB PD is only defined in rfc3769 to be to a single router attached to an= ISP link, and sub-delegations within the site are NOT communicated back to= the ISP) 5) Depending on its peering, a home router should determine it's position i= n the network relative to the CPE PD router (the root of the prefix delegat= ion / home network assuming a tree structure). 6) Depending on it's position in the home network, a home router should aut= omatically determine what functions it needs to enable per port (firewall, = learning a delegated prefix, delegating further prefixes, management access= allowed .... ) Most current IGP's would fulfill many of those requirements, but probably n= ot all. The main problem is I don't think the above list is anywhere near d= efinitive or widely accepted. So saying one protocol or mechanism is "bette= r" than another is then a bit premature IMHO. regards, RayH Philip Homburg wrote: In your letter dated Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:47:31 +0200 you wrote: If the ISP wants to control a firewall or other equipment on a user's premises then they probably need to provide and own the firewall or CPE. Vice versa for the end user. The mix of a user owned firewall with an ISP provided configuration (even if that's just enable/disable function) just won't work practically in operations. And that's even before the lawyers get involved. It's not an issue that the IETF should attempt to solve/ automate using protocols IMVHO. I don't think it is matter of an ISP wanting to control the user's firewall= . Suppose you have a generic home router, just a bunch of ethernet ports and some proessing in a small box. If the home router is attached to a WAN link, then it has to enable its firewall to separate the WAN link from the internal links. If the router is used internal to the user's network then it should not enable its firewall, unless one of the ports is connected to the guest netw= ork but then it should have a firewall tailered to guest networks. How do you construct a router such that the router always knows what it has to do, or at least is in some sense fail-safe? ________________________________ This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. From sander@steffann.nl Tue Aug 2 04:53:06 2011 Return-Path: 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 0A63F21F8BDB for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 04:53:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7l5UgFixT57B for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 04:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.137.17.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A84D21F8BA4 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 04:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15FEB2010; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:48:11 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZVqtUreiLTyC; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:47:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.248.1.36] (unknown [188.142.127.132]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF502008; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:47:56 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Sander Steffann In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:47:55 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <44B51C8D-314F-47F8-9E7D-A4A0686BC27C@steffann.nl> References: To: "Weil, Jason" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Cc: homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:53:06 -0000 Hi, > I also agree that requirements and use cases seem the next logical = step. I'd be willing to document the ones that we are contemplating. It = would be useful to have someone more familiar with DSL/Fiber residential = deployments do so there as well. I'll check the residential ISPs I'm working for. Sander From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Tue Aug 2 04:53:22 2011 Return-Path: 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 507A021F8C14; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 04:53:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.312 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.713, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rGeE9+3hIZgq; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 04:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.knowthenet.org.uk (mx1.knowthenet.org.uk [213.248.199.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F91C21F8C16; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 04:53:20 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=XTGnEYlHsgwZc8cTG4l5BIBA2Osl7OgQ6c4lh1iG4/M5/jBXYzlA49O/ gSfgRmZluCtpmclcwGfdV4YiGe/3tiLE/kvTPNQyF5coE62lAbOke4tz1 5J6m0yl4eXbOX9+; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1312286010; x=1343822010; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[homenet]=20[v6ops]=20default=20LAN=20r outing=20protocol=20for=20IPv6=20CE=0D=0A=09router|Date: =20Tue,=202=20Aug=202011=2011:53:28=20+0000|Message-ID: =20 |To:=20"Weil,=20Jason"=20|CC:=20" homenet@ietf.org"=20,=20"v6ops@ietf.org "=20|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |Content-ID:=20<61e3a55e-9dfb-4136-89a4-e07747b6efc2> |In-Reply-To:=20 |References:=20; bh=7fV9ZwG/tnbTikjtw0kZv5nsaJ/07jipdCikF/6R6h4=; b=xbpdb7Yr1yD1WXFdm3x43AmFq6GHSZnBLLecA32BNor66XTE/dMYH9Fp Gh1FMW1KPt8I7TxxzCUM6sLX8fQ7muslABl2wRHFxeyqS/2KkFeVO1Zvv oHgZCNH0YPYYA6S; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,306,1309734000"; d="scan'208";a="34501688" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 02 Aug 2011 12:53:29 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:53:28 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: "Weil, Jason" Thread-Topic: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AcxRCM+EqZcKs4krQfiVXmQz5shxJf//8zIA Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:53:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <61e3a55e-9dfb-4136-89a4-e07747b6efc2> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" , "v6ops@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:53:22 -0000 On 2 Aug 2011, at 12:39, Weil, Jason wrote: > Ray, >=20 > I also agree that requirements and use cases seem the next logical step. = I'd be willing to document the ones that we are contemplating. It would be = useful to have someone more familiar with DSL/Fiber residential deployments= do so there as well. >=20 > As has already been mentioned, this is a great conversation but it really= belongs on the Homenet list at this point (copying that list in case peopl= e are not following both). Jason=20 Thanks for the cross-post. I agree that this discussion does indeed belong in Homenet, where we are sp= ecifically chartered to investigate the issues surrounding addressing and r= outing within the SOHO network. Ray Bellis Homenet WG co-chair From fred@cisco.com Tue Aug 2 09:29:22 2011 Return-Path: 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 46BBF21F854E for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:29:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.939 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.939 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.341, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GS3LBlAUd8mi for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DFC821F854C for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:29:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=2108; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312302569; x=1313512169; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=f3FWb/EWXqs+cIp9cOswkcNDtBvfugOaFw7U2rp+f9Y=; b=KCiXP5Dte3kmAlp7FJDvnKrucO4oxzA4tpEpEv+zCr3lnpoxUmmtKqF6 PD5UL8pDk1uPD2zP/6Fwhj9+6PlU4zkC5f7WuC4cY/Sj69cEI0W4g3a30 owSKnEji+fE99Nks7u0riujIJ95eR24NkuHuwBkZzrZt/VnR9baUUHVRG Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EANIkOE6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABCp2J3gUABAQEBAgESAWYQCwQBQVcGNYdKoUkBnn+FY18Eh1qLIYUHi30 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,307,1309737600"; d="scan'208,217";a="8858849" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Aug 2011 16:29:27 +0000 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com [10.32.244.221]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p72GTQ3p021914; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:29:26 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:29:26 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:29:26 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Fred Baker In-Reply-To: <868720BB-BC71-4E16-8FB9-9AE28A7217FC@bogus.com> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:29:18 -0700 Message-Id: References: <868720BB-BC71-4E16-8FB9-9AE28A7217FC@bogus.com> To: Joel Jaeggli X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-194--1012089967 Cc: homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] Fwd: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:29:22 -0000 --Apple-Mail-194--1012089967 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jul 28, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> I think the third point on desirability of a path is key. The = routing >> protocol should avoid constrained paths like 802.15.4 mesh networks = in >> favor of longer routes through technologies like Wi-Fi or Ethernet. = We >> need to define appropriate routing metrics to make this happen. Routing protocols will generally do that anyway, but I agree that we = should make sure for normal cases.= --Apple-Mail-194--1012089967 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
I think the third point on desirability of a path is = key.  The routing
protocol should avoid constrained paths like = 802.15.4 mesh networks in
favor of longer routes through technologies = like Wi-Fi or Ethernet.  We
need to define appropriate routing = metrics to make this = happen.

Routing = protocols will generally do that anyway, but I agree that we should make = sure for normal cases.
= --Apple-Mail-194--1012089967-- From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Tue Aug 2 14:53:03 2011 Return-Path: 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 6379921F85B9 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:53:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.482 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.747, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y07TfIUnqrBB for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B143911E80A1 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:52:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.42]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.47240224; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:58:01 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1e7:20b5:9b63:21a6%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:53:02 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Ole Troan , Lorenzo Colitti Thread-Topic: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMTTmsYQ4f7+JsMUusl+Ald1vnPZUCgEUAgAGPloCAAQL+gIABcZuAgAHyAwCAACwYgIABgAkA Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:53:00 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [147.191.125.13] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Joel Jaeggli , "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 21:53:03 -0000 Nice migration to HOMENET. ;) On 8/1/11 2:58 PM, "Ole Troan" wrote: >[v6ops in bcc] > >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 10:38, Brzozowski, John >> wrote: >> The outer most router supports DHCPv6 PD (LAN side). It would have to >>be >> seeded with adequate address space to serve up IA_PD (and possibly >>IA_NA) >> for downstream routers. Based on conversations to date I assume there >> would be interest in downstream routers also support and being able to >> delegate prefixes? >>=20 >> There are two issues I see with DHCPv6 PD to distribute prefixes inside >>the home: >>=20 >> 1. Prefix delegation only really works in a tree topology, so when the >>user plugs things in wrong (e.g., plugs a LAN port into another LAN >>port, or creates a loop) it won't work. Having a routing protocol will >>allow things to work regardless of how the user plugs things in. > >prefix delegation with DHCP can be made to work in arbitrary topologies. [jjmb] agreed. >=20 > >> 2. We already use PD between the home network and the ISP. If we use it >>inside the home as well, then a home router getting a prefix via DHCPv6 >>PD will not know whether it is connected to the ISP or not, and thus if >>it should turn on the firewall or not. > >PD (or not) as a mechanism to detect a network boundary is probably not >reliable or secure enough. > >> Both of these issues can be solved by using an IGP. > >3. DHCP PD does not handle the multi-home / multi-prefix case. an IGP >based solution would. [jjmb] can you elaborate on this? Why not? > >the requirement to have an IGP is somewhat orthogonal to the problem of >prefix assignment. the autonomous properties of a flooding mechanism as >opposed to a request/reply mechanism is the key in my opinion. > >cheers, >Ole > From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Tue Aug 2 14:54:40 2011 Return-Path: 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 53BBB11E80CB for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:54:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.364, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1bgIyIyO7t-d for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1BBC11E80C4 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:54:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.42]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503620.135999091; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:54:21 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1e7:20b5:9b63:21a6%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:54:21 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Shane Amante , Lorenzo Colitti Thread-Topic: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUHw/zXadajaHM0CoA8rWqAKgMpUJPn+AgADd+YA= Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:54:20 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6F6EA473-29AC-4BF3-9F82-EA1CB6B55238@castlepoint.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [166.217.5.71] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 21:54:40 -0000 Agreed, however, it still not make it the best solution for the problem space. On 8/2/11 12:39 AM, "Shane Amante" wrote: > >On Aug 1, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > > >On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 14:40, Philip Homburg >wrote: > >It doesn't matter how do it. If it is done using an IGP, then can you bet >that >either some ISP happens to be using that IGP on WAN links, or that some >script >kiddies will try to see what happens if you try to send those packets to >random CPEs. > > > >IGPs support authentication. As part of setting up your home network, you >could associate CPEs with each other and use that to form a common auth >key. > > > > >And, likewise, any ISP worth their salt should be: >a) using authentication *within* their access and Backbone network; and, >b) using ACL's to protect their routing & signaling protocols >... so there's absolutely no legitimate reason that a customer's network >should ever "accidentally" be joined to the SP's IGP ... > >-shane >_______________________________________________ >v6ops mailing list >v6ops@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Tue Aug 2 14:57:20 2011 Return-Path: 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 F374621F85B9 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:57:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.703, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AgxCOcw-8SUl for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:57:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04AD21F85AA for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:57:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.40]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.47240893; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:02:09 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by pacdcexhub03.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1dd:b302:b617:3755%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:57:11 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Michael Newbery Thread-Topic: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUHw/zXadajaHM0CoA8rWqAKgMpUJPn+AgAAS0ICAAMv3AA== Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:57:10 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3F938CF4-39ED-43B6-A6F4-32E8F527CDE5@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [147.191.125.13] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <983A6C80BB015648869210817797BCF2@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 21:57:20 -0000 This is something that should be today as part of broadband IPv6 deployments to prevent conflict at the service provider edge. I cannot think of a good reason why I would want to accept IPv6 router advertisements, at this time from residential gateways. John On 8/2/11 1:47 AM, "Michael Newbery" wrote: >It's outside the CPE spec, but I can see that the document could state, >as an assumption, that the ISP will filter routing advertisements from >the CPE and will only pass those that it has determined (via some >external mechanism, undefined in this document) belong to the CPE. From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Tue Aug 2 15:12:31 2011 Return-Path: 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 7E1E221F8559 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:12:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.664, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7lpvjepgV2aR for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A84621F8557 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.41]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.47240933; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:02:34 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by PACDCEXHUB02.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::11d4:f530:37a0:9f4e%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:57:34 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Michael Newbery Thread-Topic: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUHw/zXadajaHM0CoA8rWqAKgMpUJPn+AgAAS0ICAAMv3AA== Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:57:33 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3F938CF4-39ED-43B6-A6F4-32E8F527CDE5@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [147.191.125.11] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <6519D2436447C548920AC3F647ACD87D@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:12:31 -0000 This is something that should be today as part of broadband IPv6 deployments to prevent conflict at the service provider edge. I cannot think of a good reason why I would want to accept IPv6 router advertisements, at this time from residential gateways. John On 8/2/11 1:47 AM, "Michael Newbery" wrote: >It's outside the CPE spec, but I can see that the document could state, >as an assumption, that the ISP will filter routing advertisements from >the CPE and will only pass those that it has determined (via some >external mechanism, undefined in this document) belong to the CPE. From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Tue Aug 2 16:23:57 2011 Return-Path: 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 C9E5411E80F1 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:23:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.304 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.304 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.569, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QNJGqK0AJxtg for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85FF111E80F7 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.40]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.47249506; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:13:49 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by pacdcexhub03.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1dd:b302:b617:3755%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 19:08:50 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Ray Hunter , Lorenzo Colitti Thread-Topic: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUOhuzXadajaHM0CoA8rWqAKgMpUKHcAA Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:08:49 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4E37AB93.3000005@globis.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [147.191.125.11] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <983A8F2C8CE1F64FA76375724B53A2EA@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 23:23:57 -0000 On 8/2/11 3:47 AM, "Ray Hunter" wrote: >As for only delegating a single /64 to home users >i) I would hope ISP's are more sympathetic to home users who have genuine >needs for a DMZ, guest LAN etc. now that NAT won't provide a solution for >this requirement [jjmb] I am sure shorter allocations will be available. As I stated in an earlier email the end user also needs to make sure their CPE supports the same. >ii) I would also hope that CIDR works beyond 64 bit prefix lengths (even >if SLAAC doesn't yet) [jjmb] assuming you are referring to longer than /64 this could work you would have to leverage DHCPv6 for address assignment or static configuration. I imagine this may complicate renumbering. From marka@isc.org Tue Aug 2 16:37:53 2011 Return-Path: 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 9626211E8095 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:37:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ACHjn3SpQ3q6 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:37:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0815721F84E6 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:37:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21377C941E; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:37:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:6233:4bff:fe01:7585]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AECDE216C80; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:37:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A3912638AA; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:37:47 +1000 (EST) To: "Brzozowski, John" From: Mark Andrews References: In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Aug 2011 21:57:10 GMT." Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:37:47 +1000 Message-Id: <20110802233747.C0A3912638AA@drugs.dv.isc.org> Cc: Michael Newbery , "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 23:37:53 -0000 In message , "Brzozowski, Jo hn" writes: > This is something that should be today as part of broadband IPv6 > deployments to prevent conflict at the service provider edge. I cannot > think of a good reason why I would want to accept IPv6 router > advertisements, at this time from residential gateways. If they advertise the /64's of the /56 they are using you can filter the unrequested traffic and also prevent looping packets when they send the rest of the /56 back to you. If we don't do something like this the border CPE router has to have a null route covering the /56 (or whatever upstream has delegated to it) which would be a good thing to do regardless. Seeing the /64's also gives you a insight into whether you can allocate on the /60 boundary or not. Similarly if you need to start planning for /52's rather than /56's. Mark > John > > On 8/2/11 1:47 AM, "Michael Newbery" wrote: > > >It's outside the CPE spec, but I can see that the document could state, > >as an assumption, that the ISP will filter routing advertisements from > >the CPE and will only pass those that it has determined (via some > >external mechanism, undefined in this document) belong to the CPE. > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org From marka@isc.org Tue Aug 2 17:55:37 2011 Return-Path: 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 2C98F11E8118 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:55:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.953 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TiMERi-gC7aw for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D96611E8108 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDE00C941E; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 00:55:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:6233:4bff:fe01:7585]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83DA5216C81; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 00:55:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896F31264CED; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:55:28 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Andrews References: <20110802233747.C0A3912638AA@drugs.dv.isc.org> In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:37:47 +1000." <20110802233747.C0A3912638AA@drugs.dv.isc.org> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:55:28 +1000 Message-Id: <20110803005528.896F31264CED@drugs.dv.isc.org> Cc: Michael Newbery , "homenet@ietf.org" , "Brzozowski, John" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:55:37 -0000 In message <20110802233747.C0A3912638AA@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews writes: > > In message , "Brzozowski, > Jo > hn" writes: > > This is something that should be today as part of broadband IPv6 > > deployments to prevent conflict at the service provider edge. I cannot > > think of a good reason why I would want to accept IPv6 router > > advertisements, at this time from residential gateways. > > If they advertise the /64's of the /56 they are using you can filter > the unrequested traffic and also prevent looping packets when they > send the rest of the /56 back to you. If we don't do something > like this the border CPE router has to have a null route covering > the /56 (or whatever upstream has delegated to it) which would be > a good thing to do regardless. > > Seeing the /64's also gives you a insight into whether you can > allocate on the /60 boundary or not. Similarly if you need to > start planning for /52's rather than /56's. > > Mark Additionally, the advertised prefixes could be used to make BCP 38 filters better for homes that are multi-homed (or even single homed). You don't need to propogate the routes but you could accept traffic sourced from the advertised ranges. Yes, I'm aware there are lots of issues involved here like not accepting overly broad routes and rapidly changing routes to prevent/reduce the abuse potential. Mark > > John > > > > On 8/2/11 1:47 AM, "Michael Newbery" wrote: > > > > >It's outside the CPE spec, but I can see that the document could state, > > >as an assumption, that the ISP will filter routing advertisements from > > >the CPE and will only pass those that it has determined (via some > > >external mechanism, undefined in this document) belong to the CPE. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > homenet mailing list > > homenet@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Tue Aug 2 17:58:05 2011 Return-Path: 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 0AB8421F8678 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:58:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.364, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19tztJNPNTVu for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:58:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7793C21F866A for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:58:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.40]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.47258617; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 19:02:53 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by pacdcexhub03.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1dd:b302:b617:3755%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:58:02 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Mark Andrews Thread-Topic: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUHw/zXadajaHM0CoA8rWqAKgMpUJPn+AgAAS0ICAAMv3AIAAHDRmgAAWVQA= Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 00:58:02 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110802233747.C0A3912638AA@drugs.dv.isc.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [98.225.180.189] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Michael Newbery , "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:58:05 -0000 On 8/2/11 7:37 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote: > >In message , >"Brzozowski, Jo >hn" writes: >> This is something that should be today as part of broadband IPv6 >> deployments to prevent conflict at the service provider edge. I cannot >> think of a good reason why I would want to accept IPv6 router >> advertisements, at this time from residential gateways. > >If they advertise the /64's of the /56 they are using you can filter >the unrequested traffic and also prevent looping packets when they >send the rest of the /56 back to you. If we don't do something >like this the border CPE router has to have a null route covering >the /56 (or whatever upstream has delegated to it) which would be >a good thing to do regardless. > >Seeing the /64's also gives you a insight into whether you can >allocate on the /60 boundary or not. Similarly if you need to >start planning for /52's rather than /56's. [jjmb] I don=B9t get it. If I (the provider) delegated a /56 I already kno= w that I delegated the same to the end user. I have no need to receive any router advertisements from the WAN interface of the end users gateway. In the case I am referring to DHCPv6 is used to dynamically delegate an IPv6 prefix of some length plus a globally routable /128 for the WAN interface. > >Mark > >> John >>=20 >> On 8/2/11 1:47 AM, "Michael Newbery" wrote: >>=20 >> >It's outside the CPE spec, but I can see that the document could state, >> >as an assumption, that the ISP will filter routing advertisements from >> >the CPE and will only pass those that it has determined (via some >> >external mechanism, undefined in this document) belong to the CPE. >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >--=20 >Mark Andrews, ISC >1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Tue Aug 2 17:58:23 2011 Return-Path: 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 E6A0F11E80F2 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:58:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.364, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uesgutKF7MaB for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:58:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8E311E80D9 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:58:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.42]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.47258660; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 19:03:29 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1e7:20b5:9b63:21a6%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:58:30 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Mark Andrews Thread-Topic: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUHw/zXadajaHM0CoA8rWqAKgMpUJPn+AgAAS0ICAAMv3AIAAHDRmgAAWVQA= Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 00:58:29 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110802233747.C0A3912638AA@drugs.dv.isc.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [24.40.55.72] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <873FDBFFE5F97D4D8FA301DAB0C584C3@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Michael Newbery , "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:58:24 -0000 On 8/2/11 7:37 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote: > >In message , >"Brzozowski, Jo >hn" writes: >> This is something that should be today as part of broadband IPv6 >> deployments to prevent conflict at the service provider edge. I cannot >> think of a good reason why I would want to accept IPv6 router >> advertisements, at this time from residential gateways. > >If they advertise the /64's of the /56 they are using you can filter >the unrequested traffic and also prevent looping packets when they >send the rest of the /56 back to you. If we don't do something >like this the border CPE router has to have a null route covering >the /56 (or whatever upstream has delegated to it) which would be >a good thing to do regardless. > >Seeing the /64's also gives you a insight into whether you can >allocate on the /60 boundary or not. Similarly if you need to >start planning for /52's rather than /56's. [jjmb] I don=B9t get it. If I (the provider) delegated a /56 I already kno= w that I delegated the same to the end user. I have no need to receive any router advertisements from the WAN interface of the end users gateway. In the case I am referring to DHCPv6 is used to dynamically delegate an IPv6 prefix of some length plus a globally routable /128 for the WAN interface. > >Mark > >> John >>=20 >> On 8/2/11 1:47 AM, "Michael Newbery" wrote: >>=20 >> >It's outside the CPE spec, but I can see that the document could state, >> >as an assumption, that the ISP will filter routing advertisements from >> >the CPE and will only pass those that it has determined (via some >> >external mechanism, undefined in this document) belong to the CPE. >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >--=20 >Mark Andrews, ISC >1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org From marka@isc.org Tue Aug 2 18:11:45 2011 Return-Path: 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 B8E0521F84F5 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:11:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.276 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.323, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ImCIE3t9bQhx for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC19421F84F3 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2B06C9422; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 01:11:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:6233:4bff:fe01:7585]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 734F2216C7B; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 01:11:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0499B1265397; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:11:42 +1000 (EST) To: "Brzozowski, John" From: Mark Andrews References: In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:58:02 GMT." Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:11:41 +1000 Message-Id: <20110803011142.0499B1265397@drugs.dv.isc.org> Cc: Michael Newbery , "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 01:11:45 -0000 In message , "Brzozowski, Jo hn" writes: > > On 8/2/11 7:37 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote: > > > > >In message , > >"Brzozowski, Jo > >hn" writes: > >> This is something that should be today as part of broadband IPv6 > >> deployments to prevent conflict at the service provider edge. I cannot > >> think of a good reason why I would want to accept IPv6 router > >> advertisements, at this time from residential gateways. > > > >If they advertise the /64's of the /56 they are using you can filter > >the unrequested traffic and also prevent looping packets when they > >send the rest of the /56 back to you. If we don't do something > >like this the border CPE router has to have a null route covering > >the /56 (or whatever upstream has delegated to it) which would be > >a good thing to do regardless. > > > >Seeing the /64's also gives you a insight into whether you can > >allocate on the /60 boundary or not. Similarly if you need to > >start planning for /52's rather than /56's. > [jjmb] I don=B9t get it. If I (the provider) delegated a /56 I already know > that I delegated the same to the end user. I have no need to receive any > router advertisements from the WAN interface of the end users gateway. In > the case I am referring to DHCPv6 is used to dynamically delegate an IPv6 > prefix of some length plus a globally routable /128 for the WAN interface. I mis-interpreted the message I replied to, i.e. RA's vs routes. > >Mark > > > >> John > >> = > > >> On 8/2/11 1:47 AM, "Michael Newbery" wrote: > >> = > > >> >It's outside the CPE spec, but I can see that the document could state, > >> >as an assumption, that the ISP will filter routing advertisements from > >> >the CPE and will only pass those that it has determined (via some > >> >external mechanism, undefined in this document) belong to the CPE. > >> = > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> homenet mailing list > >> homenet@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > >-- = > > >Mark Andrews, ISC > >1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > >PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Tue Aug 2 18:19:55 2011 Return-Path: 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 7100F11E80DF for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:19:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.781 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.781 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.682, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5-6kF06ZLCuL for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902D611E80A1 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.40]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503620.136016548; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 21:20:00 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by pacdcexhub03.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1dd:b302:b617:3755%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:20:00 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Mark Andrews Thread-Topic: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUHw/zXadajaHM0CoA8rWqAKgMpUJPn+AgAAS0ICAAMv3AIAAHDRmgAAWVQCAAAPpGIAAAjoA Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 01:19:59 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110803011142.0499B1265397@drugs.dv.isc.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [98.225.180.189] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <420329FE0B37B84AB2E202ECA078D116@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Michael Newbery , "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 01:19:55 -0000 ack On 8/2/11 9:11 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote: > >In message , >"Brzozowski, Jo >hn" writes: >>=20 >> On 8/2/11 7:37 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote: >>=20 >> > >> >In message , >> >"Brzozowski, Jo >> >hn" writes: >> >> This is something that should be today as part of broadband IPv6 >> >> deployments to prevent conflict at the service provider edge. I >>cannot >> >> think of a good reason why I would want to accept IPv6 router >> >> advertisements, at this time from residential gateways. >> > >> >If they advertise the /64's of the /56 they are using you can filter >> >the unrequested traffic and also prevent looping packets when they >> >send the rest of the /56 back to you. If we don't do something >> >like this the border CPE router has to have a null route covering >> >the /56 (or whatever upstream has delegated to it) which would be >> >a good thing to do regardless. >> > >> >Seeing the /64's also gives you a insight into whether you can >> >allocate on the /60 boundary or not. Similarly if you need to >> >start planning for /52's rather than /56's. >> [jjmb] I don=3DB9t get it. If I (the provider) delegated a /56 I alread= y >>know >> that I delegated the same to the end user. I have no need to receive >>any >> router advertisements from the WAN interface of the end users gateway. >>In >> the case I am referring to DHCPv6 is used to dynamically delegate an >>IPv6 >> prefix of some length plus a globally routable /128 for the WAN >>interface. > >I mis-interpreted the message I replied to, i.e. RA's vs routes. > >> >Mark >> > >> >> John >> >> =3D >>=20 >> >> On 8/2/11 1:47 AM, "Michael Newbery" wrote: >> >> =3D >>=20 >> >> >It's outside the CPE spec, but I can see that the document could >>state, >> >> >as an assumption, that the ISP will filter routing advertisements >>from >> >> >the CPE and will only pass those that it has determined (via some >> >> >external mechanism, undefined in this document) belong to the CPE. >> >> =3D >>=20 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> homenet mailing list >> >> homenet@ietf.org >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >> >-- =3D >>=20 >> >Mark Andrews, ISC >> >1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >> >PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >--=20 >Mark Andrews, ISC >1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org From shane@castlepoint.net Tue Aug 2 18:20:41 2011 Return-Path: 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 1AA4011E80A1 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:20:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1baK8tBU7Ogh for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:20:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F8211E8081 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id D5306268037; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 19:20:44 -0600 (MDT) Received: from host2.tcb.net (64.78.235.218 [64.78.235.218]) (authenticated-user smtp) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 19:20:44 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from shane@castlepoint.net) X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=64.78.235.218; client-port=58685; data-bytes=0 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Shane Amante In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 19:20:37 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: "Brzozowski, John" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Ray Hunter , "homenet@ietf.org" , Philip Homburg , Keith Moore Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 01:20:41 -0000 On Aug 2, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Brzozowski, John wrote: > On 8/2/11 8:28 AM, "Keith Moore" wrote: >> On Aug 2, 2011, at 4:22 AM, Philip Homburg wrote: >>=20 >>> How do you construct a router such that the router always knows what = it >>> has to do, or at least is in some sense fail-safe? >>=20 >> The idea that a firewall should automatically know what "it has to = do" >> strikes me as utterly bizarre. I realize that there's a desire to >> minimize the configuration burden for unsophisticated users (and = agree >> with that), but the idea that the firewall knows better than the user >> what his security policy should be seems ridiculous. > [jjmb] I agree Keith that having a firewall automatically know what to = do > is a tall order. I also think the is more than a desire to ease > configuration burden, this is a must since most users on the Internet = have > very basic technical skills. So, I agree with this point, but are we constraining our thinking too = early? For example, if the assumption is there is a singular = CPE-router/FW that has been allocated a /56 from a provider, then: - why couldn't the FW provide 'stateful firewall' service for the first = 'covering' /60 of IPv6 prefixes (/64's) allocated within the house; - but, the CPE-router/FW would /NOT/ provide stateful or stateless = firewall for the remaining 7/8's of address space allocated within the = house. Of course, just change the 'mask' lengths to represent whatever the WG = thinks are 'sensible' defaults. And, we'd need to decide if this is something a device in the home can = 'dynamically' request from the CPE-router/FW via, say, DHCPv6 or if = there are better options ... -shane >>=20 >> A different idea is that the firewall always work in a very minimal = mode >> by default (e.g. it passes no traffic, or maybe only outgoing port 80 >> traffic, but its configuration interface is enabled for the internal >> ports) so that the user must configure it in order to get it to do >> anything useful. That way, the first thing a user learns about his >> router/firewall is how to configure it. Then you want to focus on = making >> the configuration interface easy to understand. (You also have to = figure >> out how to keep the user from hooking up the internal port to the >> external connection.) > [jjmb] I said something similar to this is in an earlier email. To = the > start there should perhaps be a basic configuration that protects the = user > and allows the service to be usable. >>=20 >> But these are user interface issues, not protocol issues. Perhaps >> they're better addressed in homenet than here. > [jjmb] I could image some protocol work that could ease the pain here, = UI > for sure could facilitate ease of use. >>=20 >> Keith >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list >> v6ops@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >=20 > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops From samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com Tue Aug 2 18:43:07 2011 Return-Path: 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 B67935E800E for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:43:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.357 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.358, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mKVN2hG+at6k for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B936E21F874F for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:43:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p731gkMx014732; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:42:47 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.121]) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:42:40 -0400 From: Samita Chakrabarti To: Shane Amante , "Brzozowski, John" Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:42:40 -0400 Thread-Topic: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AcxRe5jG/kVwqK2VTsyoyCZyXvS21AAAPXpQ Message-ID: <16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D71E673B2129@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Ray Hunter , "homenet@ietf.org" , Philip Homburg , Keith Moore Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 01:43:07 -0000 =20 Please see below. -----Original Message----- From: homenet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Shane Amante > do is a tall order. I also think the is more than a desire to ease=20 > configuration burden, this is a must since most users on the Internet=20 > have very basic technical skills. So, I agree with this point, but are we constraining our thinking too early= ? For example, if the assumption is there is a singular CPE-router/FW that= has been allocated a /56 from a provider, then: - why couldn't the FW provide 'stateful firewall' service for the first 'co= vering' /60 of IPv6 prefixes (/64's) allocated within the house; - but, the CPE-router/FW would /NOT/ provide stateful or stateless firewall= for the remaining 7/8's of address space allocated within the house. Of course, just change the 'mask' lengths to represent whatever the WG thin= ks are 'sensible' defaults. And, we'd need to decide if this is something a device in the home can 'dyn= amically' request from the CPE-router/FW via, say, DHCPv6 or if there are b= etter options ... -shane SC> Agree. I would like to see more openness in the design of 'future home= network' where in the future we might need to do more auto-configuration; = the networks and devices might be such that they would be more lightweight = and suitable for address auto-configuration than today's DCHP only home-net= work - though DHCP(v6) support would be absolutely needed for backward comp= atibility. But constraining homenet into DHCP-only network will limit the a= pplicability of new type of networks, topologies, devices and services etc. -Samita >>=20 >> A different idea is that the firewall always work in a very minimal=20 >> mode by default (e.g. it passes no traffic, or maybe only outgoing=20 >> port 80 traffic, but its configuration interface is enabled for the=20 >> internal >> ports) so that the user must configure it in order to get it to do=20 >> anything useful. That way, the first thing a user learns about his=20 >> router/firewall is how to configure it. Then you want to focus on=20 >> making the configuration interface easy to understand. (You also=20 >> have to figure out how to keep the user from hooking up the internal=20 >> port to the external connection.) > [jjmb] I said something similar to this is in an earlier email. To=20 > the start there should perhaps be a basic configuration that protects=20 > the user and allows the service to be usable. >>=20 >> But these are user interface issues, not protocol issues. Perhaps >> they're better addressed in homenet than here. > [jjmb] I could image some protocol work that could ease the pain here,=20 > UI for sure could facilitate ease of use. >>=20 >> Keith >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list >> v6ops@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >=20 > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Tue Aug 2 18:45:31 2011 Return-Path: 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 BA0225E800F for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:45:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.678 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.543, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sMleZVitv-Gy for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157A85E800E for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.42]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.47261603; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 19:50:13 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1e7:20b5:9b63:21a6%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:45:14 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Shane Amante Thread-Topic: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUO1EzXadajaHM0CoA8rWqAKgMpUJwHsAgABgdoCAAHdbgP//w8+A Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 01:45:12 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [98.225.180.189] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <6D67671E1F540144847657D86A692D9D@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Ray Hunter , "homenet@ietf.org" , Philip Homburg , Keith Moore Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 01:45:31 -0000 Another interesting scenario where part of a delegated is interested or required to be firewalled while others not. I do not think we are limited ourselves. I think advanced users will still have the ability to do as they please and we are making sure not so advanced are not unknowingly exposed. As I mentioned earlier, I think there may be an opportunity for some protocol development in this space. John On 8/2/11 9:20 PM, "Shane Amante" wrote: > >On Aug 2, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Brzozowski, John wrote: >> On 8/2/11 8:28 AM, "Keith Moore" wrote: >>> On Aug 2, 2011, at 4:22 AM, Philip Homburg wrote: >>>=20 >>>> How do you construct a router such that the router always knows what >>>>it >>>> has to do, or at least is in some sense fail-safe? >>>=20 >>> The idea that a firewall should automatically know what "it has to do" >>> strikes me as utterly bizarre. I realize that there's a desire to >>> minimize the configuration burden for unsophisticated users (and agree >>> with that), but the idea that the firewall knows better than the user >>> what his security policy should be seems ridiculous. >> [jjmb] I agree Keith that having a firewall automatically know what to >>do >> is a tall order. I also think the is more than a desire to ease >> configuration burden, this is a must since most users on the Internet >>have >> very basic technical skills. > >So, I agree with this point, but are we constraining our thinking too >early? For example, if the assumption is there is a singular >CPE-router/FW that has been allocated a /56 from a provider, then: >- why couldn't the FW provide 'stateful firewall' service for the first >'covering' /60 of IPv6 prefixes (/64's) allocated within the house; >- but, the CPE-router/FW would /NOT/ provide stateful or stateless >firewall for the remaining 7/8's of address space allocated within the >house. > >Of course, just change the 'mask' lengths to represent whatever the WG >thinks are 'sensible' defaults. > >And, we'd need to decide if this is something a device in the home can >'dynamically' request from the CPE-router/FW via, say, DHCPv6 or if there >are better options ... > >-shane > > > > > >>>=20 >>> A different idea is that the firewall always work in a very minimal >>>mode >>> by default (e.g. it passes no traffic, or maybe only outgoing port 80 >>> traffic, but its configuration interface is enabled for the internal >>> ports) so that the user must configure it in order to get it to do >>> anything useful. That way, the first thing a user learns about his >>> router/firewall is how to configure it. Then you want to focus on >>>making >>> the configuration interface easy to understand. (You also have to >>>figure >>> out how to keep the user from hooking up the internal port to the >>> external connection.) >> [jjmb] I said something similar to this is in an earlier email. To the >> start there should perhaps be a basic configuration that protects the >>user >> and allows the service to be usable. >>>=20 >>> But these are user interface issues, not protocol issues. Perhaps >>> they're better addressed in homenet than here. >> [jjmb] I could image some protocol work that could ease the pain here, >>UI >> for sure could facilitate ease of use. >>>=20 >>> Keith >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> v6ops mailing list >>> v6ops@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list >> v6ops@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Tue Aug 2 18:47:29 2011 Return-Path: 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 855AF5E800F for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:47:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.406 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.457, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WQPq3XYy-wng for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:47:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1EF821F86EA for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:47:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.42]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503620.136018018; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 21:47:12 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1e7:20b5:9b63:21a6%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:47:12 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Samita Chakrabarti , Shane Amante Thread-Topic: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUX9D4359SJJh0EauIPirv+s9Rw== Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 01:47:11 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D71E673B2129@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [98.225.180.189] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <78DE0C579FC0104889B5935E83BDDFDF@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Ray Hunter , "homenet@ietf.org" , Philip Homburg , Keith Moore Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 01:47:29 -0000 The use of DHCPv6 is a constraint? It is just another option, which is also dynamic, in my opinion. On 8/2/11 9:42 PM, "Samita Chakrabarti" wrote: >=20 >Please see below. > >-----Original Message----- >From: homenet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-bounces@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Shane Amante >> do is a tall order. I also think the is more than a desire to ease >> configuration burden, this is a must since most users on the Internet >> have very basic technical skills. > >So, I agree with this point, but are we constraining our thinking too >early? For example, if the assumption is there is a singular >CPE-router/FW that has been allocated a /56 from a provider, then: >- why couldn't the FW provide 'stateful firewall' service for the first >'covering' /60 of IPv6 prefixes (/64's) allocated within the house; >- but, the CPE-router/FW would /NOT/ provide stateful or stateless >firewall for the remaining 7/8's of address space allocated within the >house. > >Of course, just change the 'mask' lengths to represent whatever the WG >thinks are 'sensible' defaults. > >And, we'd need to decide if this is something a device in the home can >'dynamically' request from the CPE-router/FW via, say, DHCPv6 or if there >are better options ... > >-shane > > >SC> Agree. I would like to see more openness in the design of 'future >home network' where in the future we might need to do more >auto-configuration; the networks and devices might be such that they >would be more lightweight and suitable for address auto-configuration >than today's DCHP only home-network - though DHCP(v6) support would be >absolutely needed for backward compatibility. But constraining homenet >into DHCP-only network will limit the applicability of new type of >networks, topologies, devices and services etc. > >-Samita > > > > > > > > >>>=20 >>> A different idea is that the firewall always work in a very minimal >>> mode by default (e.g. it passes no traffic, or maybe only outgoing >>> port 80 traffic, but its configuration interface is enabled for the >>> internal >>> ports) so that the user must configure it in order to get it to do >>> anything useful. That way, the first thing a user learns about his >>> router/firewall is how to configure it. Then you want to focus on >>> making the configuration interface easy to understand. (You also >>> have to figure out how to keep the user from hooking up the internal >>> port to the external connection.) >> [jjmb] I said something similar to this is in an earlier email. To >> the start there should perhaps be a basic configuration that protects >> the user and allows the service to be usable. >>>=20 >>> But these are user interface issues, not protocol issues. Perhaps >>> they're better addressed in homenet than here. >> [jjmb] I could image some protocol work that could ease the pain here, >> UI for sure could facilitate ease of use. >>>=20 >>> Keith >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> v6ops mailing list >>> v6ops@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list >> v6ops@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >homenet@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Tue Aug 2 20:09:01 2011 Return-Path: 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 7709A11E8115 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:09:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.520, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j3M+vcDmyDDO for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D9111E80F7 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.41]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.47249518; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:14:00 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by PACDCEXHUB02.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::11d4:f530:37a0:9f4e%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 19:09:01 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Nick Hilliard , Keith Moore Thread-Topic: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUO1EzXadajaHM0CoA8rWqAKgMpUJwHsAgAA1iYCAACuhAA== Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:09:00 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4E381A43.3090107@inex.ie> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [147.191.125.11] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 03:09:01 -0000 On 8/2/11 11:39 AM, "Nick Hilliard" wrote: >On 02/08/2011 13:28, Keith Moore wrote: >> A different idea is that the firewall always work in a very minimal mode >> by default (e.g. it passes no traffic, or maybe only outgoing port 80 >> traffic, but its configuration interface is enabled for the internal >> ports) so that the user must configure it in order to get it to do >> anything useful. > >Each support call into a support centre costs money, and if you scale it >up, any user that ends up calling support is basically losing money for >the >ISP. Yes, margins are that thin. [jjmb] +1 > >Building a firewall that almost guarantees that an end-user will need to >open a support call is both useless to the end-user and financially >harmful >to a service provider. There is no point whatsoever in doing this - it >adds pointless complexity with no measurable return. [jjmb] conversely building a firewall that exposes the provider will also cost in some way shape or form. > >If you want to build a router suitable for Keith Moore, then go out and >customise a WRT54G, or hack a soekris into shape. But don't assume that >most end-users have either the interest or the capability to work out a >good quality security policy for themselves because by-and-large, they >don't. [jjmb] advanced users should buy advance routers so they can do advanced things. > >Nick >_______________________________________________ >v6ops mailing list >v6ops@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Tue Aug 2 20:09:01 2011 Return-Path: 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 777D111E8118 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:09:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.233 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.498, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Gke6a8anutn for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D1711E8081 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.40]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.47249513; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:13:55 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by pacdcexhub03.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1dd:b302:b617:3755%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 19:08:56 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Keith Moore , Philip Homburg Thread-Topic: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUO1EzXadajaHM0CoA8rWqAKgMpUJwHsAgABgdoA= Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:08:55 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <58907AF4-7D35-4B3A-8A21-F6DC7D4CEDB6@network-heretics.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [147.191.125.11] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <604DA1C57A29894B8B9729F2932D76AC@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Ray Hunter , "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 03:09:01 -0000 On 8/2/11 8:28 AM, "Keith Moore" wrote: >On Aug 2, 2011, at 4:22 AM, Philip Homburg wrote: > >> How do you construct a router such that the router always knows what it >> has to do, or at least is in some sense fail-safe? > >The idea that a firewall should automatically know what "it has to do" >strikes me as utterly bizarre. I realize that there's a desire to >minimize the configuration burden for unsophisticated users (and agree >with that), but the idea that the firewall knows better than the user >what his security policy should be seems ridiculous. [jjmb] I agree Keith that having a firewall automatically know what to do is a tall order. I also think the is more than a desire to ease configuration burden, this is a must since most users on the Internet have very basic technical skills. > >A different idea is that the firewall always work in a very minimal mode >by default (e.g. it passes no traffic, or maybe only outgoing port 80 >traffic, but its configuration interface is enabled for the internal >ports) so that the user must configure it in order to get it to do >anything useful. That way, the first thing a user learns about his >router/firewall is how to configure it. Then you want to focus on making >the configuration interface easy to understand. (You also have to figure >out how to keep the user from hooking up the internal port to the >external connection.) [jjmb] I said something similar to this is in an earlier email. To the start there should perhaps be a basic configuration that protects the user and allows the service to be usable. > >But these are user interface issues, not protocol issues. Perhaps >they're better addressed in homenet than here. [jjmb] I could image some protocol work that could ease the pain here, UI for sure could facilitate ease of use. > >Keith > >_______________________________________________ >v6ops mailing list >v6ops@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops From ot@cisco.com Tue Aug 2 23:48:06 2011 Return-Path: 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 52D4221F8888 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:48:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zsz98GNir3r3 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:48:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 625A121F8866 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:48:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=ot@cisco.com; l=923; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312354096; x=1313563696; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=PfZZcjkArpGRFvFWWRhUEIzUD7g5wsbSBpD3CzWtD20=; b=W+jJVNc/sIj+OscbnCVYwOhc8Wt73ecMKcpCCelTYHDRxnxXu/nHrlKy eHvKNsa9b+PD1H5bUbxC703mC5pF2aGpvYx4v7Nd+PERf6py0TVxVgFUx LjfJMkVGf/DLbMFJIdXy2RxhiDkgB+jrqtdLWA8AgdS6WdAbKt1+LseYC I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAIruOE6Q/khN/2dsb2JhbABCp1t3gUABAQEBAgESASc/EAtGVwYuB4dKoVwBnlCFY18EknuQZg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,309,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="106386739" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Aug 2011 06:48:10 +0000 Received: from dhcp-osl-vl300-64-103-53-124.cisco.com (dhcp-osl-vl300-64-103-53-124.cisco.com [64.103.53.124]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p736m9I2000855; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 06:48:09 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 08:48:09 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7733967E-CDB9-4BDA-A209-B3E6FD81CA72@cisco.com> References: To: "Brzozowski, John" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Joel Jaeggli , "homenet@ietf.org" , Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 06:48:06 -0000 John, [...] >> 3. DHCP PD does not handle the multi-home / multi-prefix case. an IGP >> based solution would. > [jjmb] can you elaborate on this? Why not? in the PD based solution for a self configuring mechanism, the Border = Router would be the PD delegating router for the home network. that's = the router receiving the delegated prefix from the ISP. downstream = routers will use this router as a DHCP server for their PD requests. what happens if you have multiple border routers? a downstream = requesting router can only use one DHCP server, and there isn't as far = as I know any protocol mechanism for multiple DHCP servers to = synchronize and exchange information between themselves. in the autonomous case where each border router injects its own = understanding of what the site prefix is, into the home, this is not a = problem. you'll get one prefix for each ISP. cheers, Ole From dan.torbet@arrisi.com Wed Aug 3 06:43:07 2011 Return-Path: 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 9464F21F844F; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 06:43:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.489 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LAOuq1qfs4I3; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 06:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arrisi.com (ironmail2.arrisi.com [216.234.147.87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20BA21F88A6; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 06:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([10.2.141.38]) by ironmail2.arrisi.com with ESMTP with TLS id CNFSXF1.36340965; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:42:57 -0400 Received: from ATLOWA2.ARRS.ARRISI.com (10.2.131.253) by Troy.ARRS.ARRISI.COM (10.2.141.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:42:56 -0400 Received: from denexcas1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM (10.50.249.9) by ATLOWA2.ARRS.ARRISI.com (10.2.131.253) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.289.1; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:42:56 -0400 Received: from DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM ([10.50.249.5]) by denexcas1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM ([10.50.249.9]) with mapi; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:42:55 -0600 From: "Torbet, Dan" To: "v6ops@ietf.org" , "homenet@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:42:53 -0600 Thread-Topic: default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AcxR4z6O+KTfP0SaT3i3zM6mnD5iiw== Message-ID: <9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1@DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.4160-6.500.1024-18300.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--21.000700-0.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1DENEXMAIL1ARR_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [homenet] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 13:43:07 -0000 --_000_9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1DENEXMAIL1ARR_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The conversations so far on this topic have been great. I think however, w= e need to take a step back for a moment and think through what the HOMENET = network looks like when serviced by a CPE Router. In my mind, we have a fe= w scenarios that are possible. The first is a CPE ingress router to the home and no other routers. There = may be in this device multiple SSIDs and they each might need to have their= own address space and have separate firewall/filtering rules. In this cas= e, everything is contained in a single box and so no additional routing pro= tocols are needed. This has been defined in the CPE router (RFC 6204) and= the bis extension that is in draft right now. The second case is a CPE ingress router with N routers behind it. In this = case, I humbly submit that anything where N is greater than 2 says medium s= ized business maybe larger. I find it real hard to get any deeper than 2 r= outers in series for a HOMENET class device deployment. Anything greater th= an that and you likely would not use this class of device anyway. Sure the= re will be situations where this is not true ,but I'll wager that in 90% of= the installations where a CPE router is providing the link to the world, t= his will be the case. Even factoring in SmartGrid I just can't see a very = deep network. Is there a use case for more than 1 or 2 layers in a HOMENET= deployment that uses a CPE router as the connection to the world? To be cl= ear here - this is what I mean: (sorry for the poor ASCII art here ) Provider Router -------- CPE router ----------Router ------ = Router Or Provider | CPE Router ^ Router Router | = | Router Router I will acknowledge that in some business cases you might place a router on = each floor or each building in a campus, but this is where things get blurr= y for me - would you really use a CPE router in these cases for ingress int= o the business? You certainly could, but would you? Given that, I think that defining how many routers exist behind this CPE in= gress router will provide us with a reasonable place from which to define t= he needs and requirements for an IGP running in the home. Dan --_000_9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1DENEXMAIL1ARR_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The conversation= s so far on this topic have been great.  I think however, we need to t= ake a step back for a moment and think through what the HOMENET network loo= ks like when serviced by a CPE Router.  In my mind, we have a few scen= arios that are possible.

 

The first is a CPE ingress router to the home an= d no other routers.  There may be in this device multiple SSIDs and th= ey each might need to have their own address space and have separate firewa= ll/filtering rules.  In this case, everything is contained in a single= box and so no additional routing protocols are needed.  This has been= defined in the CPE router (RFC 6204)  and the bis extension that is i= n draft right now.

 

=

The second case is a CPE ingress router with N routers= behind it.  In this case, I humbly submit that anything where N is gr= eater than 2 says medium sized business maybe larger.  I find it real = hard to get any deeper than 2 routers in series for a HOMENET class device = deployment. Anything greater than that and you likely would not use this cl= ass of device anyway.  Sure there will be situations where this is not= true ,but I’ll wager that in 90% of the installations where a CPE ro= uter is providing the link to the world, this will be the case.  Even = factoring in SmartGrid I just can’t see a very deep network.  Is= there a use case for more than 1 or 2 layers in a HOMENET deployment that = uses a CPE router as the connection to the world? To be clear here – = this is what I mean:

(sorry for the poor= ASCII art here )

 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>         &= nbsp;     Provider Router -------- CPE router ---------= -Router ------ Router 

 =

Or

=  

 

            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;          Provider

        = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;       |

 = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;         CPE Router

=

         =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =     ^

   =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;    Router        = ;          Router

        &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;             = |            &= nbsp;            &nb= sp;   |

   = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;    Router        &nb= sp;        Router

 

I will acknowledge t= hat in some business cases you might place a router on each floor or each b= uilding in a campus, but this is where things get blurry for me – wou= ld you really use a CPE router in these cases for ingress into the business= ? You certainly could, but would you?

<= o:p> 

Given that, I think that defining = how many routers exist behind this CPE ingress router will provide us with = a reasonable place from which to define the needs and requirements for an I= GP running in the home.

 

Dan

= --_000_9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1DENEXMAIL1ARR_-- From pch-b2B3A6689@u-1.phicoh.com Wed Aug 3 07:00:39 2011 Return-Path: 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 B263221F8B9C for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:00:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6AZr8QUY99aR for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo-6to4.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2002:8225:f03:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9FB21F8B9B for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:00:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #66) id m1Qobzu-0001mGC; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 16:00:34 +0200 Message-Id: To: Ole Troan From: Philip Homburg Sender: pch-b2B3A6689@u-1.phicoh.com References: <7733967E-CDB9-4BDA-A209-B3E6FD81CA72@cisco.com> In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 3 Aug 2011 08:48:09 +0200 ." <7733967E-CDB9-4BDA-A209-B3E6FD81CA72@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:00:18 +0200 Cc: Joel Jaeggli , "homenet@ietf.org" , Lorenzo Colitti , "Brzozowski, John" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:00:39 -0000 In your letter dated Wed, 3 Aug 2011 08:48:09 +0200 you wrote: >what happens if you have multiple border routers? a downstream = >requesting router can only use one DHCP server, and there isn't as far = >as I know any protocol mechanism for multiple DHCP servers to = >synchronize and exchange information between themselves. Section 17.1.3 of RFC-3315 allows a client to select multiple Advertisements. Section 3.1 of RFC-3769 says: "The mechanism should allow for delegation of more than one prefix to the customer." Where does RFC-3633 say that you can have just one prefix or one DHCP server? I do want to note that in my experience, the current IPv6 model for routing is a bit incomplete when it comes to dealing with multiple upstreams if those ISPs employ ingress filtering. In most current systems, you have to resport to policy routing to send packets in the right direction. I created a simply RIPv6 extension to make at least the routing part work automatically but there are some other issues as well. From pch-b2B3A6689@u-1.phicoh.com Wed Aug 3 07:10:11 2011 Return-Path: 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 18C5121F8AF6; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:10:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jn+jsyIHhyNZ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo-6to4.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2002:8225:f03:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E76A221F8B26; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:10:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #66) id m1Qoc8o-0001hpC; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 16:09:46 +0200 Message-Id: To: "Torbet, Dan" From: Philip Homburg Sender: pch-b2B3A6689@u-1.phicoh.com In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:42:53 -0600 ." <9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1@DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:09:37 +0200 Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" , "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:10:11 -0000 In your letter dated Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:42:53 -0600 you wrote: > The second case is a CPE ingress router with N routers behind > it. In this case, I humbly submit that anything where N is > greater than 2 says medium sized business maybe larger. >From a layer 3 point of view, I think you are right (but these things are hard to predict). What happens in practice though is that routers cost about the same as switches. So people may stack routers in weird ways just because they need more ports somewhere, or a wireless basestation, etc. It not always easy to figure out how to switch off the routing functionality and get the device to become a switch. Moreover, most users are probably not even aware that there is a difference. So in practice, I wouldn't be surprised if routers would get stacked quite deep. From therbst@silverspringnet.com Wed Aug 3 07:18:28 2011 Return-Path: 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 2259A21F8A66; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:18:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KmRcGta-EiLx; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:18:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from it-ipcorp-01.silverspringnet.com (it-ipcorp-01.silverspringnet.com [74.121.22.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D36C21F8A51; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:18:27 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EAB5YOU4KyAE8/2dsb2JhbABCgk2mCoFAAQYtQwkSAQgNBAMBAig5FAkIAQEEAQ0FyFKGQgSHWpBGi18 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,310,1309762800"; d="scan'208,217";a="6353148" Received: from unknown (HELO IT-EXCA-01.silverspringnet.com) ([10.200.1.60]) by it-ipcorp-01.silverspringnet.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 03 Aug 2011 07:18:39 -0700 Received: from IT-EXMB-01.silverspringnet.com ([fe80::b81e:2d5b:d263:6c44]) by IT-EXCA-01.silverspringnet.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:18:38 -0700 From: Thomas Herbst To: "Torbet, Dan" , "v6ops@ietf.org" , "homenet@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:18:37 -0700 Thread-Topic: [homenet] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AcxR6Dyus1u1eXeITgq0/GInfmZJUA== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1@DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CA5EA627F5BBtherbstsilverspringnetcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Thomas Herbst Subject: Re: [homenet] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:18:28 -0000 --_000_CA5EA627F5BBtherbstsilverspringnetcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable IMHO, consumers should be able to connect their routers together fairly ran= domly and have them work, because they will connect them randomly. The hard problem we get to fairly quickly with random connections determini= ng which connections do or do not require special security levels. From: "Torbet, Dan" > Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 06:42:53 -0700 To: "v6ops@ietf.org" >, "homenet@ietf.org" > Subject: [homenet] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router The conversations so far on this topic have been great. I think however, w= e need to take a step back for a moment and think through what the HOMENET = network looks like when serviced by a CPE Router. In my mind, we have a fe= w scenarios that are possible. The first is a CPE ingress router to the home and no other routers. There = may be in this device multiple SSIDs and they each might need to have their= own address space and have separate firewall/filtering rules. In this cas= e, everything is contained in a single box and so no additional routing pro= tocols are needed. This has been defined in the CPE router (RFC 6204) and= the bis extension that is in draft right now. The second case is a CPE ingress router with N routers behind it. In this = case, I humbly submit that anything where N is greater than 2 says medium s= ized business maybe larger. I find it real hard to get any deeper than 2 r= outers in series for a HOMENET class device deployment. Anything greater th= an that and you likely would not use this class of device anyway. Sure the= re will be situations where this is not true ,but I=92ll wager that in 90% = of the installations where a CPE router is providing the link to the world,= this will be the case. Even factoring in SmartGrid I just can=92t see a v= ery deep network. Is there a use case for more than 1 or 2 layers in a HOM= ENET deployment that uses a CPE router as the connection to the world? To b= e clear here =96 this is what I mean: (sorry for the poor ASCII art here ) Provider Router -------- CPE router ----------Router ------ = Router Or Provider | CPE Router ^ Router Router | = | Router Router I will acknowledge that in some business cases you might place a router on = each floor or each building in a campus, but this is where things get blurr= y for me =96 would you really use a CPE router in these cases for ingress i= nto the business? You certainly could, but would you? Given that, I think that defining how many routers exist behind this CPE in= gress router will provide us with a reasonable place from which to define t= he needs and requirements for an IGP running in the home. Dan --_000_CA5EA627F5BBtherbstsilverspringnetcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
IMHO, consumers should be able = to connect their routers together fairly randomly and have them work, becau= se they will connect them randomly.

The hard probl= em we get to fairly quickly with random connections determining which conne= ctions do or do not require special security levels. 

From: "Torbet, Dan&q= uot; <Dan.Torbet@arrisi.com= >
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 06:4= 2:53 -0700
To: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homen= et@ietf.org>
Subject: [h= omenet] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router

<= /div>

The conversa= tions so far on this topic have been great.  I think however, we need = to take a step back for a moment and think through what the HOMENET network= looks like when serviced by a CPE Router.  In my mind, we have a few = scenarios that are possible.

&nbs= p;

The first is a CPE ingress router to the= home and no other routers.  There may be in this device multiple SSID= s and they each might need to have their own address space and have separat= e firewall/filtering rules.  In this case, everything is contained in = a single box and so no additional routing protocols are needed.  This = has been defined in the CPE router (RFC 6204)  and the bis extension t= hat is in draft right now.

 =

The second case is a CPE ingress router wi= th N routers behind it.  In this case, I humbly submit that anything w= here N is greater than 2 says medium sized business maybe larger.  I f= ind it real hard to get any deeper than 2 routers in series for a HOMENET c= lass device deployment. Anything greater than that and you likely would not= use this class of device anyway.  Sure there will be situations where= this is not true ,but I=92ll wager that in 90% of the installations where = a CPE router is providing the link to the world, this will be the case.&nbs= p; Even factoring in SmartGrid I just can=92t see a very deep network. = ; Is there a use case for more than 1 or 2 layers in a HOMENET deployment t= hat uses a CPE router as the connection to the world? To be clear here =96 = this is what I mean:

(sorry for the po= or ASCII art here )

 <= /p>

        &= nbsp;      Provider Router -------- CPE router ---= -------Router ------ Router 

 

Or

 

 

         &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;             = Provider

     = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;          |

          =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            CPE R= outer

     &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;        ^

           &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;        Router    = ;            &n= bsp; Router

    &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;      |        = ;            &n= bsp;        |

          &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         Router    = ;             R= outer

 

I will acknowledge that in some business cases you might place = a router on each floor or each building in a campus, but this is where thin= gs get blurry for me =96 would you really use a CPE router in these cases f= or ingress into the business? You certainly could, but would you?

 

Gi= ven that, I think that defining how many routers exist behind this CPE ingr= ess router will provide us with a reasonable place from which to define the= needs and requirements for an IGP running in the home.

 

Dan

--_000_CA5EA627F5BBtherbstsilverspringnetcom_-- From joelja@bogus.com Wed Aug 3 07:48:57 2011 Return-Path: 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 49C1B21F8B46; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:48:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S-uFyOk6V2nM; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:48:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BCD21F8B1E; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.101.144.52] (host-64-47-136-190.masergy.com [64.47.136.190]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p73En1FL039361 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:49:02 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-13--931713428 From: Joel Jaeggli In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:48:55 -0700 Message-Id: <42274D5E-BDF0-404F-BDBA-40AB8BA85965@bogus.com> References: To: Thomas Herbst X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:49:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Torbet, Dan" , "v6ops@ietf.org" , "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:48:57 -0000 --Apple-Mail-13--931713428 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Aug 3, 2011, at 7:18 AM, Thomas Herbst wrote: > IMHO, consumers should be able to connect their routers together = fairly randomly and have them work, because they will connect them = randomly. >=20 > The hard problem we get to fairly quickly with random connections = determining which connections do or do not require special security = levels.=20 the number of time's I've seen two cpe devices cascaded of each other in = ipv4 land is significant, it works for the most part in the sense that = double nat inside your house works for the most part. normally I take = pitty on those folks and help them turn the interior one into a bridge, = but the expectation that anyone will do more than plug them together is = problematic. there are other things that are routers that interact with = the home network... laptop with vmware or virtualbox is a router, today = in ipv4 it nats or bridges, smartphones are routers potentially with = their own downstream devices. some of these devices are relatively = statically connected and some of them are ephemerally connected. > From: "Torbet, Dan" > Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 06:42:53 -0700 > To: "v6ops@ietf.org" , "homenet@ietf.org" = > Subject: [homenet] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router >=20 > The conversations so far on this topic have been great. I think = however, we need to take a step back for a moment and think through what = the HOMENET network looks like when serviced by a CPE Router. In my = mind, we have a few scenarios that are possible. > =20 > The first is a CPE ingress router to the home and no other routers. = There may be in this device multiple SSIDs and they each might need to = have their own address space and have separate firewall/filtering rules. = In this case, everything is contained in a single box and so no = additional routing protocols are needed. This has been defined in the = CPE router (RFC 6204) and the bis extension that is in draft right now. > =20 > The second case is a CPE ingress router with N routers behind it. In = this case, I humbly submit that anything where N is greater than 2 says = medium sized business maybe larger. I find it real hard to get any = deeper than 2 routers in series for a HOMENET class device deployment. = Anything greater than that and you likely would not use this class of = device anyway. Sure there will be situations where this is not true = ,but I=92ll wager that in 90% of the installations where a CPE router is = providing the link to the world, this will be the case. Even factoring = in SmartGrid I just can=92t see a very deep network. Is there a use = case for more than 1 or 2 layers in a HOMENET deployment that uses a CPE = router as the connection to the world? To be clear here =96 this is what = I mean: > (sorry for the poor ASCII art here ) > =20 > Provider Router -------- CPE router ----------Router = ------ Router=20 > =20 > Or > =20 > =20 > Provider > | > CPE Router > ^ > Router = Router > | = | > Router = Router > =20 > I will acknowledge that in some business cases you might place a = router on each floor or each building in a campus, but this is where = things get blurry for me =96 would you really use a CPE router in these = cases for ingress into the business? You certainly could, but would you? > =20 > Given that, I think that defining how many routers exist behind this = CPE ingress router will provide us with a reasonable place from which to = define the needs and requirements for an IGP running in the home. > =20 > Dan > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet --Apple-Mail-13--931713428 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
IMHO, = consumers should be able to connect their routers together fairly = randomly and have them work, because they will connect them = randomly.

The hard problem we get to fairly = quickly with random connections determining which connections do or do = not require special security = levels. 

the number of = time's I've seen two cpe devices cascaded of each other in ipv4 land is = significant, it works for the most part in the sense that double nat = inside your house works for the most part. normally I take pitty on = those folks and help them turn the interior one into a bridge, but the =  expectation that anyone will do more than plug them together is = problematic. there are other things that are routers that interact with = the home network... laptop with vmware or virtualbox is a router, today = in ipv4 it nats or bridges, smartphones are routers potentially with = their own downstream devices. some of these devices are relatively = statically connected and some of them are ephemerally = connected.

From: "Torbet, Dan" <Dan.Torbet@arrisi.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 06:42:53 = -0700
To: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
Subject: [homenet] default LAN = routing protocol for IPv6 CE router

The = conversations so far on this topic have been great.  I think = however, we need to take a step back for a moment and think through what = the HOMENET network looks like when serviced by a CPE Router.  In = my mind, we have a few scenarios that are possible.
 
The = first is a CPE ingress router to the home and no other routers. =  There may be in this device multiple SSIDs and they each might = need to have their own address space and have separate = firewall/filtering rules.  In this case, everything is contained in = a single box and so no additional routing protocols are needed.  = This has been defined in the CPE router (RFC 6204)  and the bis = extension that is in draft right now.
 
The = second case is a CPE ingress router with N routers behind it.  In = this case, I humbly submit that anything where N is greater than 2 says = medium sized business maybe larger.  I find it real hard to get any = deeper than 2 routers in series for a HOMENET class device deployment. = Anything greater than that and you likely would not use this class of = device anyway.  Sure there will be situations where this is not = true ,but I=92ll wager that in 90% of the installations where a CPE = router is providing the link to the world, this will be the case.  = Even factoring in SmartGrid I just can=92t see a very deep = network.  Is there a use case for more than 1 or 2 layers in a = HOMENET deployment that uses a CPE router as the connection to the = world? To be clear here =96 this is what I mean:
(sorry for the poor ASCII art here = )
 
         =       Provider Router -------- CPE router = ----------Router ------ Router 
 
Or =
 
 
         =             &n= bsp;           &nbs= p;            =             &n= bsp; Provider
         =             &n= bsp;           &nbs= p;            =             &n= bsp;      |
         =             &n= bsp;           &nbs= p;            =             &n= bsp; CPE Router
         =             &n= bsp;           &nbs= p;            =             &n= bsp;     ^
         =             &n= bsp;           &nbs= p;           = Router           &n= bsp;      Router
         =             &n= bsp;           &nbs= p;           =    = |            &= nbsp;         =        |
         =             &n= bsp;           &nbs= p;           = Router   =             &n= bsp; Router
 
I = will acknowledge that in some business cases you might place a router on = each floor or each building in a campus, but this is where things get = blurry for me =96 would you really use a CPE router in these cases for = ingress into the business? You certainly could, but would you? =
 
Given that, I think that defining how many routers = exist behind this CPE ingress router will provide us with a reasonable = place from which to define the needs and requirements for an IGP running = in the home.
 
Dan
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing = list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or= g/mailman/listinfo/homenet

= --Apple-Mail-13--931713428-- From d.sturek@att.net Wed Aug 3 09:57:58 2011 Return-Path: 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 062EB21F8867 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:57:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.733 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.733 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.266, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lUHSQ-osUyHX for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm28.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm28.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.44.155]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B50721F8877 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.44.97] by nm28.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Aug 2011 16:58:07 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.88] by tm2.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Aug 2011 16:58:07 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1025.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Aug 2011 16:58:07 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 227276.13927.bm@omp1025.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 40945 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2011 16:58:06 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1312390686; bh=pyxFTaZrj6JgFb1Q3VozRoZJkkztdQRbWWS1Zq5piyg=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=t+K+Zwtp3tICeY+TBDTwrbK4saguamfcimhDkgR/+yoz0mvvrNWp/Vz/6FV/phTKGYIFREspBv48lm27PtN32t9Jy2nXeEDNYlUKVZSnEB+u6LcwcTl+1TOD0CraorwLYo9QPWJFPJc9x4b2EpJXuzCHKxiRD6TMdZOstQPUdhw= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 1Q0mS9kVM1mjTN4L8WMFvdpjhMb75aKppJR.dQ09lGZREur V7JGmL1h4zngL9o1r8a4BaAzmf7YtSZBzs8pYFly2uEkNm6Jj4mDJkNdXoru upTEEFDQB6Z96x4_nly6PnjjG_06DFFPYaO8OdRPt.uhKpAAx7TTf35pzQXP ochvt6vEKfx41SvQBA2kqlGbpix1Y9s4_VIeuovkYocqCVqAtzZ8SfX9vylf fpFfs_HMZ_WRluZXwRcy.6RsVTId4Js33x0BNgMj8MV682Qjwj904Or4FcUS rrUyeWp9bApXIVexhukN6SKnXXH7TDJn.Sc590fWP94yi7IkiBzFtzeAlP5E LSRKrtJS4t.KtQXu07tqv7Vld5Ujy6VVTVovW3Cwf X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [10.183.15.120] (d.sturek@38.126.23.254 with login) by smtp104.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 03 Aug 2011 09:58:04 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:57:56 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: "Rajiv Asati \(rajiva\)" , "Torbet, Dan" , , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router In-Reply-To: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0599B4A0@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:57:58 -0000 Hi Rajiv, One of the issues is that many early deployments of smart meter are using IEEE 802.15.4. That technology uses extremely small packet sizes (127 byte packets). Meanwhile, each of the device manufacturers using smart meter information are choosing their own link layer technology. SAE (electric cars) are looking to deploy powerline carrier (HomePlug GreenPHY seems to be the leading candidate, IEEE P1901 subset). So for simple smart meter deployments, the router won't necessarily be present. However, as devices like plug in electric vehicles are deployed and connected to the smart meter, you will end up with routers as well as the CPE router device. Don On 8/3/11 9:46 AM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" wrote: >Don, > >Just curious about 'smart energy' home network - Why is there a router >behind the CPE router? > >Cheers, >Rajiv > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >Of Don >> Sturek >> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:25 AM >> To: Torbet, Dan; v6ops@ietf.org; homenet@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router >> >> Hi Dan, >> >> Here is the initial scenario we are dealing with in the smart energy >arena: >> >> >> >> Provider (eg ISP) Provider (eg >utility) >> | >> | >> CPE router >> CPE router >> | >> | >> Router --------------------------------- >router >> | Link layer >> | >> | Interconnect >> | >> > > iPads, >> plug in vehicles, >> Entertainment....> >load >> shed devices....> >> >> I purposely drew in the devices the way I did since some of these >networks >> will evolve as silos then will interconnect when customers upgrade >their >> routers to ones with multiple link layers that accommodate >interconnection. >> >> Ultimately, there will not be such a rigid division of devices like >shown but >> wanted to emphasize the likelihood that there will be multiple CPE >routers in >> the home and an interconnection between them within the home. >> >> Don >> >> >> >> >> From: "Torbet, Dan" >> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:42:53 -0600 >> To: "v6ops@ietf.org" , "homenet@ietf.org" > >> Subject: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router >> >> >> >> The conversations so far on this topic have been great. I think >however, we >> need to take a step back for a moment and think through what the >HOMENET >> network looks like when serviced by a CPE Router. In my mind, we have >a few >> scenarios that are possible. >> >> >> >> >> The first is a CPE ingress router to the home and no other routers. >There may >> be in this device multiple SSIDs and they each might need to have >their own >> address space and have separate firewall/filtering rules. In this >case, >> everything is contained in a single box and so no additional routing >protocols >> are needed. This has been defined in the CPE router (RFC 6204) and >the bis >> extension that is in draft right now. >> >> >> >> The second case is a CPE ingress router with N routers behind it. In >this >> case, I humbly submit that anything where N is greater than 2 says >medium >> sized business maybe larger. I find it real hard to get any deeper >than 2 >> routers in series for a HOMENET class device deployment. Anything >greater than >> that and you likely would not use this class of device anyway. Sure >there >> will be situations where this is not true ,but I'll wager that in 90% >of the >> installations where a CPE router is providing the link to the world, >this will >> be the case. Even factoring in SmartGrid I just can't see a very deep >> network. Is there a use case for more than 1 or 2 layers in a HOMENET >> deployment that uses a CPE router as the connection to the world? To >be clear >> here - this is what I mean: >> >> (sorry for the poor ASCII art here ) >> >> >> >> Provider Router -------- CPE router ----------Router >------ >> Router >> >> >> >> Or >> >> >> >> >> >> Provider >> >> | >> >> CPE Router >> >> ^ >> >> Router >Router >> >> | >> | >> >> Router >Router >> >> >> >> I will acknowledge that in some business cases you might place a >router on >> each floor or each building in a campus, but this is where things get >blurry >> for me - would you really use a CPE router in these cases for ingress >into the >> business? You certainly could, but would you? >> >> >> >> Given that, I think that defining how many routers exist behind this >CPE >> ingress router will provide us with a reasonable place from which to >define >> the needs and requirements for an IGP running in the home. >> >> >> >> Dan >> >> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list >> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops From joelja@bogus.com Wed Aug 3 10:01:07 2011 Return-Path: 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 39B3421F8AD9; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:01:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.962 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.962 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nzo6jb6z3NdV; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A1F21F8A30; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.43.44] (mc60536d0.tmodns.net [208.54.5.198]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p73H11nL046903 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 3 Aug 2011 17:01:02 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Joel Jaeggli In-Reply-To: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0599B4A0@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:00:54 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0EB9D7EF-7B37-45B3-B6E4-5F946B19AC45@bogus.com> References: <9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1@DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0599B4A0@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:01:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Torbet, Dan" , v6ops@ietf.org, Don Sturek , homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:01:07 -0000 On Aug 3, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > Don, >=20 > Just curious about 'smart energy' home network - Why is there a router > behind the CPE router? got a better idea for interconnecting 802.15.4 and 802.3 networks than = at layer-3? > Cheers, > Rajiv >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf > Of Don >> Sturek >> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:25 AM >> To: Torbet, Dan; v6ops@ietf.org; homenet@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router >>=20 >> Hi Dan, >>=20 >> Here is the initial scenario we are dealing with in the smart energy > arena: >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Provider (eg ISP) Provider (eg > utility) >> | >> | >> CPE router >> CPE router >> | >> | >> Router --------------------------------- > router >> | Link layer >> | >> | Interconnect >> | >> > > iPads, >> plug in vehicles, >> Entertainment....> > load >> shed devices....> >>=20 >> I purposely drew in the devices the way I did since some of these > networks >> will evolve as silos then will interconnect when customers upgrade > their >> routers to ones with multiple link layers that accommodate > interconnection. >>=20 >> Ultimately, there will not be such a rigid division of devices like > shown but >> wanted to emphasize the likelihood that there will be multiple CPE > routers in >> the home and an interconnection between them within the home. >>=20 >> Don >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> From: "Torbet, Dan" >> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:42:53 -0600 >> To: "v6ops@ietf.org" , "homenet@ietf.org" > >> Subject: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> The conversations so far on this topic have been great. I think > however, we >> need to take a step back for a moment and think through what the > HOMENET >> network looks like when serviced by a CPE Router. In my mind, we = have > a few >> scenarios that are possible. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> The first is a CPE ingress router to the home and no other routers. > There may >> be in this device multiple SSIDs and they each might need to have > their own >> address space and have separate firewall/filtering rules. In this > case, >> everything is contained in a single box and so no additional routing > protocols >> are needed. This has been defined in the CPE router (RFC 6204) and > the bis >> extension that is in draft right now. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> The second case is a CPE ingress router with N routers behind it. In > this >> case, I humbly submit that anything where N is greater than 2 says > medium >> sized business maybe larger. I find it real hard to get any deeper > than 2 >> routers in series for a HOMENET class device deployment. Anything > greater than >> that and you likely would not use this class of device anyway. Sure > there >> will be situations where this is not true ,but I'll wager that in 90% > of the >> installations where a CPE router is providing the link to the world, > this will >> be the case. Even factoring in SmartGrid I just can't see a very = deep >> network. Is there a use case for more than 1 or 2 layers in a = HOMENET >> deployment that uses a CPE router as the connection to the world? To > be clear >> here - this is what I mean: >>=20 >> (sorry for the poor ASCII art here ) >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Provider Router -------- CPE router ----------Router > ------ >> Router >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Or >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Provider >>=20 >> | >>=20 >> CPE Router >>=20 >> ^ >>=20 >> Router > Router >>=20 >> | >> | >>=20 >> Router > Router >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> I will acknowledge that in some business cases you might place a > router on >> each floor or each building in a campus, but this is where things get > blurry >> for me - would you really use a CPE router in these cases for ingress > into the >> business? You certainly could, but would you? >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Given that, I think that defining how many routers exist behind this > CPE >> ingress router will provide us with a reasonable place from which to > define >> the needs and requirements for an IGP running in the home. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Dan >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ 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 >=20 From fred@cisco.com Wed Aug 3 10:04:13 2011 Return-Path: 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 B573E21F8B7B; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:04:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.926 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.327, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ty0AylitOxuE; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0914621F8B79; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:04:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=496; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312391065; x=1313600665; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OjM7luTFASZGfII3w/xgjpaY330O4Rnhc/VP9GBjr8c=; b=fbIQCsK1iR75naDflOQmevqhzwEj+acJ7N9vAJUCDGjlcuuEtBwVJMf4 uSVc5hS6UQ80tYmGnPInxa4Z6Ofm47EHlBRFw6cflAHVC8lXUgIY8RucQ T7DTqIwpViRlF//hUPvo8qbBxLTmdKPZY2zC0Xp4I0m30L1jhuahJkS0M g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAB1/OU6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABCp2B3gUABAQEBAgESASc/BQsLRlcGNYdKBKJBAZ5mhWNfBIdaiyGFB4t9 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,311,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="9316501" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Aug 2011 17:04:24 +0000 Received: from wl-dy-169-228-177-245.ucsd.edu (sjc-vpn3-550.cisco.com [10.21.66.38]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p73H4NTp025456; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 17:04:23 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by wl-dy-169-228-177-245.ucsd.edu (PGP Universal service); Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:04:23 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by wl-dy-169-228-177-245.ucsd.edu on Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:04:23 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Fred Baker In-Reply-To: <9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1@DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:04:16 -0700 Message-Id: <6AD8BD68-9D16-48D6-AE2C-52F81CA74D79@cisco.com> References: <9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1@DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM> To: "Torbet, Dan" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" , "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:04:13 -0000 On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:42 AM, Torbet, Dan wrote: > The conversations so far on this topic have been great. I think = however, we need to take a step back for a moment and think through what = the HOMENET network looks like when serviced by a CPE Router. In my = mind, we have a few scenarios that are possible. That was, of course, one of the objectives of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-fun-multi-router "Exploring the multi-router SOHO network", Fred Baker, 1-Jul-11= From fred@cisco.com Wed Aug 3 10:06:21 2011 Return-Path: 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 9479121F8B74; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:06:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.623 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.624, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SsVuqBYSeHuj; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B855021F8B5E; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:06:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=5629; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312391193; x=1313600793; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FbhtqaxQp70hQJHeCZHJmq8DA5VrvdbIZVJOHfcHC80=; b=amHSQYkTEhSA8jXIP9q4usSresEMLloeFlPO7puwPMksPC2v2zyRW7lf 2q5AcMzqBrY66AeJ1KqeMgDDdObSdimEWGp0PsWnGAAdLod8VSl6Aajf9 v3o5XABOR+cgPHu9HoEsLj6LBl51seBNsezPS+zggyFWD/QU3KCwOAeXw s=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,311,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="9319369" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Aug 2011 17:06:25 +0000 Received: from wl-dy-169-228-177-245.ucsd.edu (sjc-vpn3-550.cisco.com [10.21.66.38]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p73H6ODi016279; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 17:06:24 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by wl-dy-169-228-177-245.ucsd.edu (PGP Universal service); Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:06:24 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by wl-dy-169-228-177-245.ucsd.edu on Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:06:24 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Fred Baker In-Reply-To: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0599B4A0@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:06:17 -0700 Message-Id: References: <9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1@DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0599B4A0@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Torbet, Dan" , v6ops@ietf.org, Don Sturek , homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:06:21 -0000 On Aug 3, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > Don, >=20 > Just curious about 'smart energy' home network - Why is there a router > behind the CPE router? Because there is not (today) a residential router that spans = 802.3/802.11 and 802.15.4 or 1901.2. There is therefore an expectation = that those interfaces might be on a separate router. I can imagine = vastly-multiport routers - you and I make them - but I can also imagine = a cluster of two-port routers. > Cheers, > Rajiv >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf > Of Don >> Sturek >> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:25 AM >> To: Torbet, Dan; v6ops@ietf.org; homenet@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router >>=20 >> Hi Dan, >>=20 >> Here is the initial scenario we are dealing with in the smart energy > arena: >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Provider (eg ISP) Provider (eg > utility) >> | >> | >> CPE router >> CPE router >> | >> | >> Router --------------------------------- > router >> | Link layer >> | >> | Interconnect >> | >> > > iPads, >> plug in vehicles, >> Entertainment....> > load >> shed devices....> >>=20 >> I purposely drew in the devices the way I did since some of these > networks >> will evolve as silos then will interconnect when customers upgrade > their >> routers to ones with multiple link layers that accommodate > interconnection. >>=20 >> Ultimately, there will not be such a rigid division of devices like > shown but >> wanted to emphasize the likelihood that there will be multiple CPE > routers in >> the home and an interconnection between them within the home. >>=20 >> Don >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> From: "Torbet, Dan" >> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:42:53 -0600 >> To: "v6ops@ietf.org" , "homenet@ietf.org" > >> Subject: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> The conversations so far on this topic have been great. I think > however, we >> need to take a step back for a moment and think through what the > HOMENET >> network looks like when serviced by a CPE Router. In my mind, we = have > a few >> scenarios that are possible. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> The first is a CPE ingress router to the home and no other routers. > There may >> be in this device multiple SSIDs and they each might need to have > their own >> address space and have separate firewall/filtering rules. In this > case, >> everything is contained in a single box and so no additional routing > protocols >> are needed. This has been defined in the CPE router (RFC 6204) and > the bis >> extension that is in draft right now. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> The second case is a CPE ingress router with N routers behind it. In > this >> case, I humbly submit that anything where N is greater than 2 says > medium >> sized business maybe larger. I find it real hard to get any deeper > than 2 >> routers in series for a HOMENET class device deployment. Anything > greater than >> that and you likely would not use this class of device anyway. Sure > there >> will be situations where this is not true ,but I'll wager that in 90% > of the >> installations where a CPE router is providing the link to the world, > this will >> be the case. Even factoring in SmartGrid I just can't see a very = deep >> network. Is there a use case for more than 1 or 2 layers in a = HOMENET >> deployment that uses a CPE router as the connection to the world? To > be clear >> here - this is what I mean: >>=20 >> (sorry for the poor ASCII art here ) >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Provider Router -------- CPE router ----------Router > ------ >> Router >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Or >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Provider >>=20 >> | >>=20 >> CPE Router >>=20 >> ^ >>=20 >> Router > Router >>=20 >> | >> | >>=20 >> Router > Router >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> I will acknowledge that in some business cases you might place a > router on >> each floor or each building in a campus, but this is where things get > blurry >> for me - would you really use a CPE router in these cases for ingress > into the >> business? You certainly could, but would you? >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Given that, I think that defining how many routers exist behind this > CPE >> ingress router will provide us with a reasonable place from which to > define >> the needs and requirements for an IGP running in the home. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Dan >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ 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 From jhw@apple.com Wed Aug 3 11:10:10 2011 Return-Path: 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 50F9721F8538; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:10:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.662 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.662 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JBKwDpZkBjW3; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:10:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-out.apple.com (crispin.apple.com [17.151.62.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA2BC21F855D; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:10:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from relay16.apple.com ([17.128.113.55]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTP id <0LPD00EX66FDYQV1@mail-out.apple.com>; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:09:31 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807137-b7c4bae0000013e5-54-4e398fa2c4ed Received: from kencur (kencur.apple.com [17.151.62.38]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (RC4-MD5/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay16.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id C7.82.05093.2AF893E4; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kallisti.apple.com (kallisti.apple.com [17.193.13.64]) by kencur.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPSA id <0LPD007GY6FVR190@kencur.apple.com>; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:09:31 -0700 (PDT) From: james woodyatt In-reply-to: <0EB9D7EF-7B37-45B3-B6E4-5F946B19AC45@bogus.com> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:09:30 -0700 Message-id: <80215711-1B7D-428C-9B7B-75D61BFAC66E@apple.com> References: <9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1@DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0599B4A0@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <0EB9D7EF-7B37-45B3-B6E4-5F946B19AC45@bogus.com> To: Joel Jaeggli X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiON1OTXdRv6WfwfqpihbvFx1isTh9bC+z A5PHkiU/mQIYo7hsUlJzMstSi/TtErgyWl/uYy24w1zRfeYVawPjN6YuRk4OCQETiTO9K9gh bDGJC/fWs3UxcnEICbQzSVz9uIgZJMErICjxY/I9li5GDg5mAXmJg+dlQcLMAloS3x+1soDY QgKTmCS2NSaD2MICfhJ7H59lBbHZBFQkvl2+ywTSyilgK3H/bglImEVAVeLz3QtMEGPMJD71 3mGC2GQjsbHpMxPECe8YJd6c/gqWEBFQlji1ZD4rxJ3yEotbPjNOYBSYheS6WQjXzUJy3QJG 5lWMgkWpOYmVhmZ6iQUFOal6yfm5mxhBAdhQaL6DcftfuUOMAhyMSjy8BUmWfkKsiWXFlbmH GCU4mJVEeOdVAoV4UxIrq1KL8uOLSnNSiw8xSnOwKInzbv5o5ickkJ5YkpqdmlqQWgSTZeLg lGpgdNO3vL5hprFBj1HC2hknAgOWWN3Kcyry+VTMG3H9RGjmbk45yVnpZT7zxPSTP6pev3pv uQJ/LFfmnI3he99MfmPEvGXWD71/nKqKf149ZTr+66ps4scpBxUk0o6+ZORNfhnfYL3dbUb7 rZT7pXNYf3nVGIjuEN1be2/mNb1Fq4TfeT6c8G/KQSWW4oxEQy3mouJEAEmSr+k8AgAA Cc: IPv6 Operations , homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:10:10 -0000 On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:00 , Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > got a better idea for interconnecting 802.15.4 and 802.3 networks than at layer-3? How does 802.15.4 achieve the 1280 octet minimum MTU size required by IPv6? I'm sure this is explained in an RFC somewhere, but I don't know. Hoping someone knows off the top of their head and can quickly rattle off a citation from memory. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, core os networking From rdroms@cisco.com Wed Aug 3 11:12:09 2011 Return-Path: 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 554F921F8A57; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:12:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.900, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id flhRftmNT1eX; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6742321F8A4D; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:12:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rdroms@cisco.com; l=747; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312395141; x=1313604741; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=i0ZvOxk4yUEBWBq/ycv96hSsz8IhKKfVJwBMI0y0+Fo=; b=YO7oWwQS+NgMZNOKOQkndI9mQyZo0pZCXQVUN41V0wgLgFzT0bkmF1aq Z1Sq/yyJBXN8/dGuo+MtLyJIBk0fshF6+/A54r68oiy1qqF9iCiWuZH5L gUf5u3A2/ZFSkwOeY99rMlKDb73xq2vCtXZJlqyIExYGJ9hiUmv8yClN8 Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAOGOOU6rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABDp2B3gUABAQEBAgEBAQEPASc0CwULCxguJzAGEyKHSgSiNAGeaYVjXwSSe5EA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,311,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="9345907" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Aug 2011 18:12:20 +0000 Received: from bxb-rdroms-8712.cisco.com (bxb-rdroms-8712.cisco.com [10.98.10.83]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p73ICJlQ003826; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 18:12:19 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: <80215711-1B7D-428C-9B7B-75D61BFAC66E@apple.com> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:12:18 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <73A004D0-2CC2-4B19-A3B2-0ADB79081582@cisco.com> References: <9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1@DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0599B4A0@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <0EB9D7EF-7B37-45B3-B6E4-5F946B19AC45@bogus.com> <80215711-1B7D-428C-9B7B-75D61BFAC66E@apple.com> To: james woodyatt X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Joel Jaeggli , IPv6 Operations , homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:12:09 -0000 RFC 4944 - Ralph On Aug 3, 2011, at 2:09 PM 8/3/11, james woodyatt wrote: > On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:00 , Joel Jaeggli wrote: >>=20 >> got a better idea for interconnecting 802.15.4 and 802.3 networks = than at layer-3? >=20 > How does 802.15.4 achieve the 1280 octet minimum MTU size required by = IPv6? I'm sure this is explained in an RFC somewhere, but I don't know. = Hoping someone knows off the top of their head and can quickly rattle = off a citation from memory. >=20 >=20 > -- > james woodyatt > member of technical staff, core os networking >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops From samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com Wed Aug 3 12:16:48 2011 Return-Path: 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 24D3021F8876 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 12:16:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.33 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.33 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.331, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rhc8LLSFj46I for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 12:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0208221F8865 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 12:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p73JGKOx019035; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:16:23 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.121]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 15:16:18 -0400 From: Samita Chakrabarti To: "Brzozowski, John" , Shane Amante Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 15:16:17 -0400 Thread-Topic: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUX9D4359SJJh0EauIPirv+s9R5ULf6ZA Message-ID: <16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D71E673FC10C@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D71E673B2129@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Ray Hunter , "homenet@ietf.org" , Philip Homburg , Keith Moore Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 19:16:48 -0000 =20 > The use of DHCPv6 is a constraint? It is just another option, which is a= lso dynamic, in my opinion. DHCP PD will work too in multi-router case but there might be limitation in= case of multi-homing. Another option to explore is stateless address auto-configuration using Nei= ghbor Discovery during the startup process. -Samita On 8/2/11 9:42 PM, "Samita Chakrabarti" wrote: >=20 >Please see below. > >-----Original Message----- >From: homenet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 >Behalf Of Shane Amante >> do is a tall order. I also think the is more than a desire to ease=20 >> configuration burden, this is a must since most users on the Internet=20 >> have very basic technical skills. > >So, I agree with this point, but are we constraining our thinking too=20 >early? For example, if the assumption is there is a singular=20 >CPE-router/FW that has been allocated a /56 from a provider, then: >- why couldn't the FW provide 'stateful firewall' service for the first=20 >'covering' /60 of IPv6 prefixes (/64's) allocated within the house; >- but, the CPE-router/FW would /NOT/ provide stateful or stateless=20 >firewall for the remaining 7/8's of address space allocated within the=20 >house. > >Of course, just change the 'mask' lengths to represent whatever the WG=20 >thinks are 'sensible' defaults. > >And, we'd need to decide if this is something a device in the home can=20 >'dynamically' request from the CPE-router/FW via, say, DHCPv6 or if=20 >there are better options ... > >-shane > > >SC> Agree. I would like to see more openness in the design of 'future >home network' where in the future we might need to do more=20 >auto-configuration; the networks and devices might be such that they=20 >would be more lightweight and suitable for address auto-configuration=20 >than today's DCHP only home-network - though DHCP(v6) support would be=20 >absolutely needed for backward compatibility. But constraining homenet=20 >into DHCP-only network will limit the applicability of new type of=20 >networks, topologies, devices and services etc. > >-Samita > > > > > > > > >>>=20 >>> A different idea is that the firewall always work in a very minimal=20 >>> mode by default (e.g. it passes no traffic, or maybe only outgoing=20 >>> port 80 traffic, but its configuration interface is enabled for the=20 >>> internal >>> ports) so that the user must configure it in order to get it to do=20 >>> anything useful. That way, the first thing a user learns about his=20 >>> router/firewall is how to configure it. Then you want to focus on=20 >>> making the configuration interface easy to understand. (You also=20 >>> have to figure out how to keep the user from hooking up the internal=20 >>> port to the external connection.) >> [jjmb] I said something similar to this is in an earlier email. To=20 >> the start there should perhaps be a basic configuration that protects=20 >> the user and allows the service to be usable. >>>=20 >>> But these are user interface issues, not protocol issues. Perhaps >>> they're better addressed in homenet than here. >> [jjmb] I could image some protocol work that could ease the pain=20 >> here, UI for sure could facilitate ease of use. >>>=20 >>> Keith >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> v6ops mailing list >>> v6ops@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list >> v6ops@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >homenet@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From wouter.cloetens@softathome.com Wed Aug 3 14:02:42 2011 Return-Path: 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 3507021F8538 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:02:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.525 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4J14xCvbGMqk for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e2big.org (e2big.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:d5b::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F3221F8532 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:02:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [188.140.4.218] (helo=[192.168.1.103]) by e2big.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QoiaT-0000TK-W7 for homenet@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 23:02:46 +0200 Message-ID: <4E39B772.2020206@softathome.com> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 23:02:42 +0200 From: Wouter Cloetens User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: homenet@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [homenet] Firewall (was: default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router) X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 21:02:42 -0000 On 03/08/11 03:45, Brzozowski, John wrote: > On 8/2/11 9:20 PM, "Shane Amante" wrote: >> On Aug 2, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Brzozowski, John wrote: >>> On 8/2/11 8:28 AM, "Keith Moore" wrote: >>>> On Aug 2, 2011, at 4:22 AM, Philip Homburg wrote: >>>> The idea that a firewall should automatically know what "it has to do" >>>> strikes me as utterly bizarre. I realize that there's a desire to >>>> minimize the configuration burden for unsophisticated users (and agree >>>> with that), but the idea that the firewall knows better than the user >>>> what his security policy should be seems ridiculous. >>> [jjmb] I agree Keith that having a firewall automatically know >>> what to do is a tall order. I also think the is more than a >>> desire to ease configuration burden, this is a must since most >>> users on the Internet have very basic technical skills. [...] My take on firewalls is that devices, or more precisely software installed on devices, must request for services to be opened. UPnP IGDv2 is capable of doing this today for IPv6, just as UPnP IGDv1 does it for IPv4. I see no other way to make firewalling scalable (working for every service at every hop), sturdy (not fall over due to misconfiguration), and working without user interaction. >> And, we'd need to decide if this is something a device in the home can >> 'dynamically' request from the CPE-router/FW via, say, DHCPv6 or if there >> are better options ... > Another interesting scenario where part of a delegated is interested > or required to be firewalled while others not. I do not think we are > limited ourselves. I think advanced users will still have the ability > to do as they please and we are making sure not so advanced are not > unknowingly exposed. > > As I mentioned earlier, I think there may be an opportunity for some > protocol development in this space. I'm not a big fan of the UPnP protocol, but it already fills some of this space. Others could be considered, e.g. PCP. My take on this, and every single technical element in the scope of homenet's problem space, is that the challenge is symmetry: to make every protocol and delegation work upstream and downstream from every router. I would bet that every CPE router will contain a firewall. All available IPv4 CPE routers today do, and my customers all require the same for IPv6. UPnP IGDv2 (or another protocol) can be extended to allow opening all ports in all protocols for a prefix that is delegated to a downstream router, (or announced by a downstream router or whatever). So, thinking about our "tall order" here... Scenario 1: the downstream router implements its own firewall. The upstream router's firewall allows all traffic from and to that router to pass through, assuming the downstream router will handle it. Scenario 2: the downstream router does not implement its own firewall, or is not aware that the upstream router already implements a firewall, and relays firewall service requests to the upstream router. Scenario 3: the downstream router implements its own firewall. The upstream router's firewall, by policy, denies all traffic from and to that router, or, in the more likely SPI case, denies all new connections to that router's prefix. The downstream router must not only serve requests by hosts on its own downstream interface, but relay those requests to the upstream router. Scenario 3a: same as 3, but the downstream router starts by requesting to allow all traffic to and from its prefix to release the upstream router of the burden of firewalling, like in scenario 1. ... and more scenarios imaginable. Upstream and downstream capability detection is one challenge, so the right behaviour for the right scenario can be picked. All of this must be subject to override by policies set by the user or the provider. That's another challenge; the user must be able to determine at what level which policy makes his application fail. It all has to be secure. You don't want a malware agent to be able to pose as a downstream CPE router and punching a /64-size (or bigger) hole in the firewall. bfn, Wouter From jhw@apple.com Wed Aug 3 15:04:34 2011 Return-Path: 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 7CE2421F8754 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 15:04:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.658 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.658 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6mBSTUSLZoxo for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 15:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-out.apple.com (crispin.apple.com [17.151.62.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15B021F8752 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 15:04:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from relay11.apple.com ([17.128.113.48]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPS id <0LPD00E1SHAOYQM2@mail-out.apple.com> for homenet@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:04:46 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807130-b7c45ae000001381-bc-4e39c5a56e4e Received: from koseret (koseret.apple.com [17.151.62.39]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (RC4-MD5/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 3C.71.04993.5A5C93E4; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kallisti.apple.com (kallisti.apple.com [17.193.13.64]) by koseret.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPSA id <0LPD0019AHBXUF40@koseret.apple.com> for homenet@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:04:45 -0700 (PDT) From: james woodyatt In-reply-to: <4E39B772.2020206@softathome.com> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:04:45 -0700 Message-id: References: <4E39B772.2020206@softathome.com> To: Wouter Cloetens X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiON1OXXfZUUs/gw8nGS3eLzrE4sDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujOmzG9kLZrNXdKxdwtjA+Jq1i5GTQ0LAROLV1oVsELaYxIV7 68FsIYFOJon/mxlBbF4BQYkfk++xdDFycDALyEscPC8LEmYW0JL4/qgVKMwFVL6SSaK57xsL SEJYIEJi57vnYHPYBFQkvl2+ywRicwroSSzcvY0ZxGYRUJX4+H4rM8QgEYmtH08zgcznFbCR eDmXF+KEZIn+yxPARooAnbnw/3FGiDPlJRa3fGacwCgwC8l1sxCum4XkugWMzKsYBYtScxIr DQ31EgsKclL1kvNzNzGCgq6h0GAH49qf/IcYBTgYlXh4C5Is/YRYE8uKK3MPMUpwMCuJ8M6r BArxpiRWVqUW5ccXleakFh9ilOZgURLnnffBzE9IID2xJDU7NbUgtQgmy8TBKdXAaJ2ol3NG fuexxvwzQkKca03b7D+Wh00+1bmyxXHtuadn14pvSio3LFMtPvY5u0rv7ByVuOYbGq1lj0t9 a5JTipc85Dx2flfUnoVvTK/1nN7/wKmMle3p8f+rmd59e/ZL44v+kcPbOeZY7O6v+9AzN7tl SaPDyr3PgyRTre4uF3b7x79Cdh/HTiWW4oxEQy3mouJEAEKWHCo2AgAA Cc: homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] Firewall (was: default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router) X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 22:04:34 -0000 On Aug 3, 2011, at 14:02 , Wouter Cloetens wrote: > > My take on firewalls is that devices, or more precisely software installed on devices, must request for services to be opened. My take on home gateway firewalls, not surprisingly, is documented in RFC 6092, which is referenced specifically in the HOMENET working group charter. The short summary of my position on this question is that unmanaged firewalls, as the ones in many home gateways necessarily will be, MUST NOT be deployed routinely in a way that makes it impractical to implement more managed end-to-end network security protocols. I really feel quite strongly about that, and if necessary I will put on the asbestos suit and reprise my role in the IETF flame wars that led to the drafting of the rather nuanced language we finally achieved in RFC 6092. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, core os networking From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Wed Aug 3 16:09:17 2011 Return-Path: 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 76AB821F87C3 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 16:09:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.195 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.460, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QxeSwq29s+Xi for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 16:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788A021F8784 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 16:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.41]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.47249510; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:13:53 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by PACDCEXHUB02.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::11d4:f530:37a0:9f4e%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 19:08:54 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Philip Homburg , Shane Amante Thread-Topic: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUOxQzXadajaHM0CoA8rWqAKgMpUKHpWA Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:08:53 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [147.191.125.11] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <5DBD4564505FA3499528576566231D9D@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 23:09:17 -0000 Not sure either of the below could happen accidentally. The latter would be especially concerning. On 8/2/11 4:15 AM, "Philip Homburg" wrote: >What matters is whether >any ISP will accidentally do something that would disable its customers' >firewalls. Or, whether any ISP will come up with a network configuration >that >allows customers to disable each others firewalls. From robert_eachus@cable.comcast.com Wed Aug 3 20:42:17 2011 Return-Path: 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 A69AA11E80BB for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 20:42:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.463 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wF5f+JHt9mh7 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 20:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6BF11E8073 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 20:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.40]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503620.136158815; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 23:42:03 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXMB12.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::b1fa:342f:cacd:d6ec]) by pacdcexhub03.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1dd:b302:b617:3755%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 23:42:03 -0400 From: "Eachus, Robert" To: "Brzozowski, John" , Philip Homburg , Shane Amante Thread-Topic: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUlh42Tp2jHZ0CEukIkticndUGQ== Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 03:42:02 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [173.161.244.238] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 03:42:17 -0000 IMHO it seems like due to security concerns, a home device should never disable security settings (like firewall) automatically based on information from its gateway or other up stream devices. On 8/2/11 7:08 PM, "Brzozowski, John" wrote: >Not sure either of the below could happen accidentally. The latter would >be especially concerning. > > >On 8/2/11 4:15 AM, "Philip Homburg" wrote: > >>What matters is whether >>any ISP will accidentally do something that would disable its customers' >>firewalls. Or, whether any ISP will come up with a network configuration >>that >>allows customers to disable each others firewalls. > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >homenet@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From robert.cragie@gmail.com Wed Aug 3 21:03:24 2011 Return-Path: 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 988B721F86C4; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 21:03:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.676 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N4TGITNStkbW; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 21:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287E221F86C3; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 21:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so1423439vxi.31 for ; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 21:03:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=PnR236v1kyhBD9XotJhMTNeqMwLeG5bV6JWROvOR5Nc=; b=wfoRPa7/2fyUdqd5vgwE4bErDeY5HEyMLs4qoXUNZ+9jn5awgikKQtpN1el3n0+9Sk zZ87JW6mdMsfGn0TNqM2wNJiIDr1evRHg1URkMc7qvx0wQZkGR9GFALNIN+DvNMK62wA 0pY0Tlo7iFmSi7dpCOXrLeAe46nq4FFjppE/Y= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.192.76 with SMTP id dp12mr73071vcb.212.1312430616483; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 21:03:36 -0700 (PDT) Sender: robert.cragie@gmail.com Received: by 10.220.6.15 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 21:03:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0EB9D7EF-7B37-45B3-B6E4-5F946B19AC45@bogus.com> References: <9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1@DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0599B4A0@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <0EB9D7EF-7B37-45B3-B6E4-5F946B19AC45@bogus.com> Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:03:36 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: -uumSqRKWIkGrNVx7nzUArzudMA Message-ID: From: Robert Cragie To: Joel Jaeggli Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba4fbd5ab018af04a9a61074 Cc: "Torbet, Dan" , v6ops@ietf.org, Don Sturek , homenet@ietf.org, "Rajiv Asati \(rajiva\)" Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 04:03:24 -0000 --90e6ba4fbd5ab018af04a9a61074 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 +1 L2 bridging is OK if you can do it but not everything looks like Ethernet frames. Not only that but if we have multi-link subnets using route-over, the router to host ratio goes up considerably. The problem space is then multi-link subnets then multi-subnet site/zone/homenets. L3 routing is the only way this is going to work in homenet. Robert On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > > Don, > > > > Just curious about 'smart energy' home network - Why is there a router > > behind the CPE router? > > got a better idea for interconnecting 802.15.4 and 802.3 networks than at > layer-3? > > > Cheers, > > Rajiv > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of Don > >> Sturek > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:25 AM > >> To: Torbet, Dan; v6ops@ietf.org; homenet@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router > >> > >> Hi Dan, > >> > >> Here is the initial scenario we are dealing with in the smart energy > > arena: > >> > >> > >> > >> Provider (eg ISP) Provider (eg > > utility) > >> | > >> | > >> CPE router > >> CPE router > >> | > >> | > >> Router --------------------------------- > > router > >> | Link layer > >> | > >> | Interconnect > >> | > >> >> >> iPads, > >> plug in vehicles, > >> Entertainment....> > > load > >> shed devices....> > >> > >> I purposely drew in the devices the way I did since some of these > > networks > >> will evolve as silos then will interconnect when customers upgrade > > their > >> routers to ones with multiple link layers that accommodate > > interconnection. > >> > >> Ultimately, there will not be such a rigid division of devices like > > shown but > >> wanted to emphasize the likelihood that there will be multiple CPE > > routers in > >> the home and an interconnection between them within the home. > >> > >> Don > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From: "Torbet, Dan" > >> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:42:53 -0600 > >> To: "v6ops@ietf.org" , "homenet@ietf.org" > > > >> Subject: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router > >> > >> > >> > >> The conversations so far on this topic have been great. I think > > however, we > >> need to take a step back for a moment and think through what the > > HOMENET > >> network looks like when serviced by a CPE Router. In my mind, we have > > a few > >> scenarios that are possible. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The first is a CPE ingress router to the home and no other routers. > > There may > >> be in this device multiple SSIDs and they each might need to have > > their own > >> address space and have separate firewall/filtering rules. In this > > case, > >> everything is contained in a single box and so no additional routing > > protocols > >> are needed. This has been defined in the CPE router (RFC 6204) and > > the bis > >> extension that is in draft right now. > >> > >> > >> > >> The second case is a CPE ingress router with N routers behind it. In > > this > >> case, I humbly submit that anything where N is greater than 2 says > > medium > >> sized business maybe larger. I find it real hard to get any deeper > > than 2 > >> routers in series for a HOMENET class device deployment. Anything > > greater than > >> that and you likely would not use this class of device anyway. Sure > > there > >> will be situations where this is not true ,but I'll wager that in 90% > > of the > >> installations where a CPE router is providing the link to the world, > > this will > >> be the case. Even factoring in SmartGrid I just can't see a very deep > >> network. Is there a use case for more than 1 or 2 layers in a HOMENET > >> deployment that uses a CPE router as the connection to the world? To > > be clear > >> here - this is what I mean: > >> > >> (sorry for the poor ASCII art here ) > >> > >> > >> > >> Provider Router -------- CPE router ----------Router > > ------ > >> Router > >> > >> > >> > >> Or > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Provider > >> > >> | > >> > >> CPE Router > >> > >> ^ > >> > >> Router > > Router > >> > >> | > >> | > >> > >> Router > > Router > >> > >> > >> > >> I will acknowledge that in some business cases you might place a > > router on > >> each floor or each building in a campus, but this is where things get > > blurry > >> for me - would you really use a CPE router in these cases for ingress > > into the > >> business? You certainly could, but would you? > >> > >> > >> > >> Given that, I think that defining how many routers exist behind this > > CPE > >> ingress router will provide us with a reasonable place from which to > > define > >> the needs and requirements for an IGP running in the home. > >> > >> > >> > >> Dan > >> > >> _______________________________________________ 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > --90e6ba4fbd5ab018af04a9a61074 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1

L2 bridging is OK if you can do it but not everything= looks like Ethernet frames.=A0Not only that but if we have multi-link subn= ets using route-over, the router to host ratio goes up considerably. The pr= oblem space is then multi-link subnets then multi-subnet site/zone/homenets= .=A0L3 routing is the only way this is going to work in homenet.

Robert

On Wed, A= ug 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:

On Aug 3, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:

> Don,
>
> Just curious about 'smart energy' home network - Why is there = a router
> behind the CPE router?

got a better idea for interconnecting 802.15.4 and 802.3 networks tha= n at layer-3?

> Cheers,
> Rajiv
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf= .org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ie= tf.org] On Behalf
> Of Don
>> Sturek
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:25 AM
>> To: Torbet, Dan; v6ops@ietf.org<= /a>; homenet@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE rout= er
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> Here is the initial scenario we are dealing with in the smart ener= gy
> arena:
>>
>>
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Provider (eg ISP) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Provider (eg
> utility)
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 |
>> |
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 CPE router
>> CPE router
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|
>> |
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Router =A0 =A0 =A0 ----= -----------------------------
> router
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Link layer
>> |
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Interconnect
>> |
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <Macs,
>> <Smart appliances,
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 iPads,
>> plug in vehicles,
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Entertainment....>
> load
>> shed devices....>
>>
>> I purposely drew in the devices the way I did since some of these<= br> > networks
>> will evolve as silos then will interconnect when customers upgrade=
> their
>> routers to ones with multiple link layers that accommodate
> interconnection.
>>
>> Ultimately, there will not be such a rigid division of devices lik= e
> shown but
>> wanted to emphasize the likelihood that there will be multiple CPE=
> routers in
>> the home and an interconnection between them within the home.
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Torbet, Dan" <Dan.Torbet@arrisi.com>
>> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:42:53 -0600
>> To: "v6ops@ietf.org&quo= t; <v6ops@ietf.org>, "homenet@ietf.org"
> <homenet@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router >>
>>
>>
>> The conversations so= far on this topic have been great. =A0I think
> however, we
>> need to take a step back for a moment and think through what the > HOMENET
>> network looks like when serviced by a CPE Router. =A0In my mind, w= e have
> a few
>> scenarios that are possible.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The first is a CPE ingress router to the home and no other routers= .
> There may
>> be in this device multiple SSIDs and they each might need to have<= br> > their own
>> address space and have separate firewall/filtering rules. =A0In th= is
> case,
>> everything is contained in a single box and so no additional routi= ng
> protocols
>> are needed. =A0This has been defined in the CPE router (RFC 6204) = =A0and
> the bis
>> extension that is in draft right now.
>>
>>
>>
>> The second case is a CPE ingress router with N routers behind it. = =A0In
> this
>> case, I humbly submit that anything where N is greater than 2 says=
> medium
>> sized business maybe larger. =A0I find it real hard to get any dee= per
> than 2
>> routers in series for a HOMENET class device deployment. Anything<= br> > greater than
>> that and you likely would not use this class of device anyway. =A0= Sure
> there
>> will be situations where this is not true ,but I'll wager that= in 90%
> of the
>> installations where a CPE router is providing the link to the worl= d,
> this will
>> be the case. =A0Even factoring in SmartGrid I just can't see a= very deep
>> network. =A0Is there a use case for more than 1 or 2 layers in a H= OMENET
>> deployment that uses a CPE router as the connection to the world? = To
> be clear
>> here - this is what I mean:
>>
>> (sorry for the poor ASCII art here )
>>
>>
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Provider Router -------- CPE router --= --------Router
> ------
>> Router
>>
>>
>>
>> Or
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Provider
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 |
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0CPE Router
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0^
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Router
> Router
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|
>> |
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Router
> Router
>>
>>
>>
>> I will acknowledge that in some business cases you might place a > router on
>> each floor or each building in a campus, but this is where things = get
> blurry
>> for me - would you really use a CPE router in these cases for ingr= ess
> into the
>> business? You certainly could, but would you?
>>
>>
>>
>> Given that, I think that defining how many routers exist behind th= is
> CPE
>> ingress router will provide us with a reasonable place from which = to
> define
>> the needs and requirements for an IGP running in the home.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> ____________________= ___________________________ v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ie= tf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

--90e6ba4fbd5ab018af04a9a61074-- From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Wed Aug 3 22:02:37 2011 Return-Path: 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 EA36611E80E1 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 22:02:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.735 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nrlQZcvW18r6 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 22:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293A011E80A6 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 22:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.41]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.47448531; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 23:07:43 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by PACDCEXHUB02.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::11d4:f530:37a0:9f4e%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 01:02:41 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Philip Homburg , Ole Troan Thread-Topic: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMUmO8qdjdHEiqQkyLPtp/QXZfGg== Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:02:39 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [24.40.55.72] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9EAE197A673192468F20228B19D1E141@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Joel Jaeggli , "homenet@ietf.org" , Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:02:38 -0000 On 8/3/11 10:00 AM, "Philip Homburg" wrote: >In your letter dated Wed, 3 Aug 2011 08:48:09 +0200 you wrote: >>what happens if you have multiple border routers? a downstream =3D >>requesting router can only use one DHCP server, and there isn't as far = =3D >>as I know any protocol mechanism for multiple DHCP servers to =3D >>synchronize and exchange information between themselves. [jjmb] there has recently been working started in dhc for DHCPv6 failover which requires DHCPv6 servers to exchange information. > >Section 17.1.3 of RFC-3315 allows a client to select multiple >Advertisements. > >Section 3.1 of RFC-3769 says: "The mechanism should allow for delegation >of more than one prefix to the customer." > >Where does RFC-3633 say that you can have just one prefix or one DHCP >server? [jjmb] there is none as far as I know. > >I do want to note that in my experience, the current IPv6 model for >routing >is a bit incomplete when it comes to dealing with multiple upstreams if >those ISPs employ ingress filtering. In most current systems, you have to >resport to policy routing to send packets in the right direction. > >I created a simply RIPv6 extension to make at least the routing part work >automatically but there are some other issues as well. > > From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Wed Aug 3 22:09:21 2011 Return-Path: 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 D83E821F8559 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 22:09:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.917 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.182, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7cXx31yTRKYk for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 22:09:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5447B21F8557 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 22:09:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.42]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.47448747; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 23:14:31 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1e7:20b5:9b63:21a6%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 01:09:30 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Ole Troan Thread-Topic: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMTTmsYQ4f7+JsMUusl+Ald1vnPZUCgEUAgAGPloCAAQL+gIABcZuAgAHyAwCAACwYgIABgAkAgADYn4CAATOtAA== Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:09:28 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7733967E-CDB9-4BDA-A209-B3E6FD81CA72@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [24.40.55.71] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Joel Jaeggli , "homenet@ietf.org" , Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:09:22 -0000 On 8/3/11 2:48 AM, "Ole Troan" wrote: >John, > >[...] > >>> 3. DHCP PD does not handle the multi-home / multi-prefix case. an IGP >>> based solution would. >> [jjmb] can you elaborate on this? Why not? > >in the PD based solution for a self configuring mechanism, the Border >Router would be the PD delegating router for the home network. that's the >router receiving the delegated prefix from the ISP. downstream routers >will use this router as a DHCP server for their PD requests. > >what happens if you have multiple border routers? a downstream requesting >router can only use one DHCP server, and there isn't as far as I know any >protocol mechanism for multiple DHCP servers to synchronize and exchange >information between themselves. [jjmb] when you say synchronizing are referring to failover or simply a means to coordinate which server is doing what? Regardless, you are correct there is not such mechanism, however, dhc has recently started work on failover for DHCPv6. If preference is the goal one server could use a higher DHCPv6 preference than the other. There would still have to be a negotiation mechanism. > >in the autonomous case where each border router injects its own >understanding of what the site prefix is, into the home, this is not a >problem. you'll get one prefix for each ISP. [jjmb] but does this solve the problem? These prefixes will both be active simultaneously? If yes, this can also be done using DHCPv6 no? > >cheers, >Ole > From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Wed Aug 3 22:17:35 2011 Return-Path: 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 B69E721F84F1 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 22:17:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.19 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.455, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KAmc3PXNpvH3 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 22:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980FB21F85EC for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 22:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.41]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.47449029; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 23:22:40 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by PACDCEXHUB02.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::11d4:f530:37a0:9f4e%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 01:17:39 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Wouter Cloetens , "homenet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [homenet] Firewall (was: default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router) Thread-Index: AQHMUmXT2nMYj342Mki/N1QUdd4/EQ== Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:17:36 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4E39B772.2020206@softathome.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [24.40.55.71] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [homenet] Firewall (was: default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router) X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:17:35 -0000 I generally agree with your comments below including the reference to UPnP. On 8/3/11 5:02 PM, "Wouter Cloetens" wrote: >On 03/08/11 03:45, Brzozowski, John wrote: >> On 8/2/11 9:20 PM, "Shane Amante" wrote: >>> On Aug 2, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Brzozowski, John wrote: >>>> On 8/2/11 8:28 AM, "Keith Moore" wrote: >>>>> On Aug 2, 2011, at 4:22 AM, Philip Homburg wrote: >>>>> The idea that a firewall should automatically know what "it has to >>>>>do" >>>>> strikes me as utterly bizarre. I realize that there's a desire to >>>>> minimize the configuration burden for unsophisticated users (and >>>>>agree >>>>> with that), but the idea that the firewall knows better than the user >>>>> what his security policy should be seems ridiculous. >>>> [jjmb] I agree Keith that having a firewall automatically know >>>> what to do is a tall order. I also think the is more than a >>>> desire to ease configuration burden, this is a must since most >>>> users on the Internet have very basic technical skills. > >[...] > >My take on firewalls is that devices, or more precisely software >installed on devices, must request for services to be opened. UPnP IGDv2 >is capable of doing this today for IPv6, just as UPnP IGDv1 does it for >IPv4. >I see no other way to make firewalling scalable (working for every >service at every hop), sturdy (not fall over due to misconfiguration), >and working without user interaction. > >>> And, we'd need to decide if this is something a device in the home can >>> 'dynamically' request from the CPE-router/FW via, say, DHCPv6 or if >>>there >>> are better options ... > >> Another interesting scenario where part of a delegated is interested >> or required to be firewalled while others not. I do not think we are >> limited ourselves. I think advanced users will still have the ability >> to do as they please and we are making sure not so advanced are not >> unknowingly exposed. >> >> As I mentioned earlier, I think there may be an opportunity for some >> protocol development in this space. > >I'm not a big fan of the UPnP protocol, but it already fills some of >this space. Others could be considered, e.g. PCP. > >My take on this, and every single technical element in the scope of >homenet's problem space, is that the challenge is symmetry: to make >every protocol and delegation work upstream and downstream from every >router. >I would bet that every CPE router will contain a firewall. All available >IPv4 CPE routers today do, and my customers all require the same for IPv6. > >UPnP IGDv2 (or another protocol) can be extended to allow opening all >ports in all protocols for a prefix that is delegated to a downstream >router, (or announced by a downstream router or whatever). > >So, thinking about our "tall order" here... > >Scenario 1: the downstream router implements its own firewall. The >upstream router's firewall allows all traffic from and to that router to >pass through, assuming the downstream router will handle it. >Scenario 2: the downstream router does not implement its own firewall, >or is not aware that the upstream router already implements a firewall, >and relays firewall service requests to the upstream router. >Scenario 3: the downstream router implements its own firewall. The >upstream router's firewall, by policy, denies all traffic from and to >that router, or, in the more likely SPI case, denies all new connections >to that router's prefix. The downstream router must not only serve >requests by hosts on its own downstream interface, but relay those >requests to the upstream router. >Scenario 3a: same as 3, but the downstream router starts by requesting >to allow all traffic to and from its prefix to release the upstream >router of the burden of firewalling, like in scenario 1. >... and more scenarios imaginable. > >Upstream and downstream capability detection is one challenge, so the >right behaviour for the right scenario can be picked. >All of this must be subject to override by policies set by the user or >the provider. That's another challenge; the user must be able to >determine at what level which policy makes his application fail. >It all has to be secure. You don't want a malware agent to be able to >pose as a downstream CPE router and punching a /64-size (or bigger) hole >in the firewall. > >bfn, Wouter >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >homenet@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From ot@cisco.com Thu Aug 4 00:36:24 2011 Return-Path: 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 6EE3021F8B71 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 00:36:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cpVnG2vYpAxW for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 00:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8159321F8B68 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 00:36:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=ot@cisco.com; l=869; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312443397; x=1313652997; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=OmjCnmKsgKkvqtpwVkw4Jn9IZV6BT78BVmlgROasAoI=; b=BBkxjVaFVQkpRi+F2FYNHCKSVK2H/NbR+WV806yJMS1LDBQnW2gPbx0l iPOeTtD5jKGV2TBukNeAjMhx98bPkxH/CXq5HcfRljlhBKYYuP3WdrmRt M2+R5ntIh5y1ZB3bcTHkdJ7Gxr/wK87pxUHrciut1JOkZC2r722Fbk7hg I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAK1KOk6Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABCp2R3gUABAQEBAgESASc/EAtGVwY1h0qiLQGfBoVjXwSSe5Bm X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,315,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="46589913" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Aug 2011 07:36:36 +0000 Received: from dhcp-osl-vl300-64-103-53-124.cisco.com (dhcp-osl-vl300-64-103-53-124.cisco.com [64.103.53.124]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p747aaNg003898; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 07:36:36 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 09:36:35 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <93021BAE-29B4-4914-B01E-D2528A5BA815@cisco.com> References: To: "Brzozowski, John" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Joel Jaeggli , homenet@ietf.org, Philip Homburg , Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 07:36:24 -0000 John, [...] >> in the autonomous case where each border router injects its own >> understanding of what the site prefix is, into the home, this is not = a >> problem. you'll get one prefix for each ISP. > [jjmb] but does this solve the problem? These prefixes will both be > active simultaneously? If yes, this can also be done using DHCPv6 no? if you are multi-homed, then that will result in multiple prefixes, one = from each ISP. if you have one CPE connected to each ISP, then downstream routers will = if they were using some form of hierarchical DHCP PD, have to request = prefixes from each CPE. as Philip pointed out, there is nothing in the = DHCP spec prohibiting a requesting router to choose all servers that = advertise themselves, instead of just one. I don't think that's current = DHCP client behaviour though. cheers, Ole= From jhw@apple.com Thu Aug 4 12:32:49 2011 Return-Path: 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 A967911E8082; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:32:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uam28ynIQkdQ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-out.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.151.62.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C32011E807B; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:32:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from relay14.apple.com ([17.128.113.52]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPS id <0LPF00GQS4YZK5R0@mail-out.apple.com>; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 12:33:04 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807134-b7c71ae0000014d0-0a-4e3af2c68136 Received: from kencur (kencur.apple.com [17.151.62.38]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (RC4-MD5/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay14.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id A5.73.05328.6C2FA3E4; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 12:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kallisti.apple.com (kallisti.apple.com [17.193.13.64]) by kencur.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPSA id <0LPF0044C4Z4Y4A0@kencur.apple.com>; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 12:33:04 -0700 (PDT) From: james woodyatt In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 12:33:04 -0700 Message-id: References: <9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1@DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0599B4A0@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <0EB9D7EF-7B37-45B3-B6E4-5F946B19AC45@bogus.com> To: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiON1OTffYJys/g21npSzeLzrEYnH62F5m ByaPJUt+MgUwRnHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBltMxYz1xwn6PiytYVjA2MzexdjJwcEgImEjMnNLBC 2GISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEmhnkph74AMjSIJXQFDix+R7LF2MHBzMAvISB8/LgoSZBbQkvj9qZQGx hQQmAdU/sQGxhQX8JPY+Pgs2k01AReLb5btMIDanQLDE56c/wWwWAVWJv/vamSBGqkj8b+CH 2GQjsXfjESaIE7YySVzrewtWIyIgItE8PRTiTHmJxS2fGScwCsxCctwshONmITluASPzKkbB otScxEpDE73EgoKcVL3k/NxNjKDwayg02cF48Cf/IUYBDkYlHt5fu6z8hFgTy4orcw8xSnAw K4nwGp0ECvGmJFZWpRblxxeV5qQWH2KU5mBREue9/d7MT0ggPbEkNTs1tSC1CCbLxMEp1cCY Gql95HbQu86DZw6XXXJZ88FeLiwnNE7ya67GcXWPL7UmpotqJ0bEGQXmXVp/aqb7rC/36q+Z z/33qiSBMdxG6vKtdZ/3H7F8a/H1P8Oy5Uv2+mzs35jwPrWYZcW0SaIHsl8K7J918bKmnmTY GtWl337t6F+zPdqMoeT5d94YlpUTpBcJLfYNV2Ipzkg01GIuKk4EAHwOagA7AgAA Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 19:32:49 -0000 On Aug 3, 2011, at 21:03 , Robert Cragie wrote: > > L2 bridging is OK if you can do it but not everything looks like Ethernet frames. Not only that but if we have multi-link subnets using route-over, the router to host ratio goes up considerably. The problem space is then multi-link subnets then multi-subnet site/zone/homenets. L3 routing is the only way this is going to work in homenet. This is not strictly true. ND-proxy is an alternative. I've been told it's not a *viable* alternative--- for unspecified and possibly non-technical reasons-- but it is an alternative. I've got a big bucket of popcorn to munch while I watch this discussion play out, and I really don't have a strong opinion one way or another. My take, to the extent I have one, is that in comparison to L2-briding and ND-proxy, L3 routing on home networks will be "a bag of hurt" (to borrow a phrase from Le Grande Fromage), but if that's the direction from which rough consensus will emerge... well, okay then. Let's open up the bag. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, core os networking From john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Thu Aug 4 13:12:07 2011 Return-Path: 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 4CD9321F8B4F for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 13:12:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.023 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.023 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.288, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jn3KOnWstcJr for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 13:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70F521F8B0F for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 13:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.55.40]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.47574802; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 14:17:15 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::3cf0:9cac:6c2a:7359]) by pacdcexhub03.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1dd:b302:b617:3755%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 16:12:13 -0400 From: "Brzozowski, John" To: Ole Troan Thread-Topic: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router Thread-Index: AQHMTTmsYQ4f7+JsMUusl+Ald1vnPZUCgEUAgAGPloCAAQL+gIABcZuAgAHyAwCAACwYgIABgAkAgADYn4CAATOtAIAAbDCAgACQDQA= Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 20:12:09 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <93021BAE-29B4-4914-B01E-D2528A5BA815@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [24.40.55.70] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Joel Jaeggli , "homenet@ietf.org" , Philip Homburg , Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:12:07 -0000 On 8/4/11 3:36 AM, "Ole Troan" wrote: >John, > >[...] > >>> in the autonomous case where each border router injects its own >>> understanding of what the site prefix is, into the home, this is not a >>> problem. you'll get one prefix for each ISP. >> [jjmb] but does this solve the problem? These prefixes will both be >> active simultaneously? If yes, this can also be done using DHCPv6 no? > >if you are multi-homed, then that will result in multiple prefixes, one >from each ISP. >if you have one CPE connected to each ISP, then downstream routers will >if they were using some form of hierarchical DHCP PD, have to request >prefixes from each CPE. as Philip pointed out, there is nothing in the >DHCP spec prohibiting a requesting router to choose all servers that >advertise themselves, instead of just one. I don't think that's current >DHCP client behaviour though. [jjmb] in this case each edge CPE router will offer a unique prefix. Unless the downstream routers issue separate DHCPv6 requests I imagine only one would be accepted by the downstream router at any time. The only thing that comes to mind to allow one prefix from being selected over another (which is non-deterministic) is DHCPv6 preference. If the second CPE uses something less than 255 this would increase the chances the prefix from the first CPE router would be selected. > >cheers, >Ole From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Fri Aug 5 00:39:01 2011 Return-Path: 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 1588021F8AED for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:39:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.096 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sI5O9GP8hwex for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mail.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 621E621F8ACC for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:38:55 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:Accept-Language: Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type:Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding: MIME-Version; b=pMzXlSIGJd17+71JYwhbBce2wexJrv+XjczxG/e634DEY629zLYb+JO9 Dz7PecJdaPmwLNtTK1iG1sSrH5yCmST9148kGikd+SD5z8mHbCd4+HH4y /uB8xfecBrLSGo+; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1312529953; x=1344065953; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20IETF=2081=20draft=20minutes|Date:=20Fri,=205 =20Aug=202011=2007:38:54=20+0000|Message-ID:=20|To:=20"homene t@ietf.org"=20|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |Content-ID:=20; bh=xSMmeCVGJzC/hGNio8t5qUH2CoA7t5qYKqWUVTekS2E=; b=B95y/wtL7BR/+NIw4nyhmRuIIhtKhTukhhQugURrFDU1iOILoR6GN+qB WsfyZpSgeV3WDtC3K3Ol/NwiWfFOFjEJTrCAVMfu7R2dD8LASZjhfEvTw tM0nw/g0qQBBRk+; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,321,1309734000"; d="scan'208";a="27684368" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 05 Aug 2011 08:38:56 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:38:56 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: "homenet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IETF 81 draft minutes Thread-Index: AQHMU0K6ZE8/zXKfJ02dnIRZRdru4g== Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 07:38:54 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [homenet] IETF 81 draft minutes X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 07:39:01 -0000 The draft minutes of the Homenet WG session at IETF 81 are at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/homenet.pdf Please submit any comments or corrections by next Thursday (11th). Thanks, Ray & Mark From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Fri Aug 5 07:57:38 2011 Return-Path: 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 3189F21F859E for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 07:57:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.407 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.808, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LywFdzP3j9Xt for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 07:57:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.knowthenet.org.uk (mx1.knowthenet.org.uk [213.248.199.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D5621F854C for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 07:57:35 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:Accept-Language: Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type:Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding: MIME-Version; b=q836OECkFDDz2e7iodiMlmFtUiujbEOZ92po7Yhx1xxOfOVlFDE9T9hX u1X2h67X5HppC3g5PdlczNd9sdJ/3++KTjA7CxWhaR0zRI2cJnBFTMHUQ kRdizzCjWWnpOJP; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1312556275; x=1344092275; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Homenet=20Architecture=20Draft|Date:=20Fri, =205=20Aug=202011=2014:57:42=20+0000|Message-ID:=20|To:=20"ho menet@ietf.org"=20|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |Content-ID:=20; bh=AJQWCCxpHxJV9QVKXl4X07Qgdp+crMWQadMMzh6w1sA=; b=bLk4hoeDlYfyYQJ4O/TROr+fu8xvjHwunUjqSq3X2KOryR4QOXD4MPol aX7sufigMsPNXTqp6BO0pWnxtFgLD0XORF/2q4s9vI05yvzTSn8cnFwE5 crgF7RjGO6wEgDT; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,323,1309734000"; d="scan'208";a="34564391" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 05 Aug 2011 15:57:44 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:57:44 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: "homenet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Homenet Architecture Draft Thread-Index: AQHMU4AHnEmO8rmkpkC08yROa7BBhg== Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 14:57:42 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:57:38 -0000 We currently have draft-arkko-townsley-homenet-arch-00 as a candidate for o= ur first chartered WG item. To ensure we can maintain some inertia following our session in Quebec, it = would be appreciated if members could review this document. I'd especially like to see some feedback on =A73.2 "Principles" since I get= the impression that some of those may be quite contentious. The discussion on LAN-side routing is interesting and I'm happy to see that= continue. However we must also work on the bigger picture before getting = rat-holed too much into implementation details. Ray Bellis Homenet co-chair From d.sturek@att.net Fri Aug 5 09:10:36 2011 Return-Path: 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 74FE821F8BEF for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:10:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.104 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.364, BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EuZsxd2KjZPd for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm14-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm14-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.213.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9551321F8BF4 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.212.146] by nm14.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2011 16:10:53 -0000 Received: from [98.139.221.49] by tm3.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2011 16:10:53 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp102.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2011 16:10:53 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1312560653; bh=CvP0v8Ns2JCBENHckPHZQHxhiDpFA1g+U8x72GcVu78=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=HgxfygEcBgUG2q+Bg2uAaeDR6LwBcGRw42J9fcEi+sr7bASpXSqDxRnEWpbiqjWt8p4/M3EhLkqvR19CuRmjCrKomTpXMBsONIJBYI9H6/Qxl3/OuAYExLMAYNli3ndCrrA+ilCmQUGHU6Okfh/5z39EutJhDCQQhY9ctXvfQ/Q= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 210754.20249.bm@smtp102.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: yLH_bDsVM1kDjKULqkLFAAVDCknJJkPHc5hpWWgs49kpA9k lvfAPhIP.t0OgJEdhoU7U0wSukwTc12339weugk8Zg1OyysFt5LRYFKWVDZ_ SL5L7xV26KyMG6VPuSJMFxseDnri5C8qnKxYem97DLGiEWwwwPE0YG5Me8pD 7EW_AChB5uV1ae9vT6n._4ymbmmYDhdS5HSpniQpwE0vuvhI0YASqLAfRmK3 If_ehObPwWn1Tlojiy4vBBGouc0K69Sxs1oV9OHKHrpEj8nV9CDnVfdQ.YAm R.KBsGNMsX7BcSZak83r9tAIO87vs1Hke3jf8W1frOKpx0Mfj6zIcosynk5_ XAAeNh0GR4p21MRZ1obkIGAUY_vqWZNSjQM6tjAovs3j8OvJmDUkaBTfX5j_ a5pZ_BehUzqvQyuta9BMQ X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [10.1.1.103] (d.sturek@174.78.56.227 with login) by smtp102.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 05 Aug 2011 09:10:52 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 09:10:45 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Ray Bellis , "homenet@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:10:36 -0000 Hi Ray, I don't agree with the statement: "However we must also work on the bigger picture before getting rat-holed too much into implementation details." I found the discussion on routing protocols very relevant. I hope the group can also review/revise the architecture at the same time. Don =20 On 8/5/11 7:57 AM, "Ray Bellis" wrote: >We currently have draft-arkko-townsley-homenet-arch-00 as a candidate for >our first chartered WG item. > >To ensure we can maintain some inertia following our session in Quebec, >it would be appreciated if members could review this document. > >I'd especially like to see some feedback on =A73.2 "Principles" since I get >the impression that some of those may be quite contentious. > >The discussion on LAN-side routing is interesting and I'm happy to see >that continue. However we must also work on the bigger picture before >getting rat-holed too much into implementation details. > >Ray Bellis >Homenet co-chair > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >homenet@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Fri Aug 5 09:21:49 2011 Return-Path: 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 C2A4021F8B87 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:21:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.367 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8rbtHmZsMQSk for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mail.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56D521F8AFB for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:21:47 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=kfOTggJ/tSrxsXxBAJ5YcD8WIRdcQUV7uIJUdWJ692AThER86+bdIeAt Y07dspVadB1wIVMZLR8KKakNXRjohHazqbT5EiDxM8puwlAF7GWg7R13H d1OSC3m4A+eeY6Y; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1312561327; x=1344097327; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20RE:=20[homenet]=20Homenet=20Architecture=20Dr aft|Date:=20Fri,=205=20Aug=202011=2016:20:34=20+0000 |Message-ID:=20<8B7F972437853B40865000D86857B1D118D3C5FA@ wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk>|To:=20Don=20Sturek=20,=20"homenet@ietf.org"=20 |MIME-Version:=201.0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted- printable|In-Reply-To:=20 |References:=20,; bh=He1aHeO/uJ4fUhRb4GR/QlA1JQX6YckiX3+knQL/qW8=; b=qJKHYI8ciaDFUkBMx+R8t/hfl/x3Rp+jLpRdRgaioPSzLdTlqiooLnnv 42IfoyEnZ7Xl7/tpnaLErGmK28yju+w/NNLh6kDJOR7sJPGB54HJbqxtc mIACEqi1uZ0vEBM; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,324,1309734000"; d="scan'208";a="27703437" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 05 Aug 2011 17:22:03 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 17:22:03 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: Don Sturek , "homenet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft Thread-Index: AQHMU4pMxpflKHVYak6HsiuS3F0bX5UOcCAN Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 16:20:34 +0000 Message-ID: <8B7F972437853B40865000D86857B1D118D3C5FA@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:21:49 -0000 > Hi Ray,=0A= >=0A= > I don't agree with the statement: "However we must also work on the bigge= r=0A= > picture before getting rat-holed too much into implementation details."= =0A= >=0A= > I found the discussion on routing protocols very relevant. I hope the=0A= > group can also review/revise the architecture at the same time.=0A= =0A= Don,=0A= =0A= I specifically said that I'm happy for the routing protocol discussion to c= ontinue.=0A= =0A= However we mustn't forget our initial work item - the architecture draft.= =0A= =0A= Ray=0A= From bs7652@att.com Fri Aug 5 10:09:18 2011 Return-Path: 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 7692C21F8BA0 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:09:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tr3OGGHJ74Tt for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFC221F8B80 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:09:17 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1312564175!19106312!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146] Received: (qmail 439 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2011 17:09:35 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-2.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 5 Aug 2011 17:09:35 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p75H8Mik016052; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:08:22 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010624.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010624.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.91]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id p75H8CJu015836; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:08:13 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010627.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.202]) by 01GAF5142010624.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:08:50 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010650.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.120]) by 01NC27689010627.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:08:50 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:09:23 -0400 Message-ID: <750BF7861EBBE048B3E648B4BB6E8F4F1E3B2FCC@crexc50p> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft Thread-Index: AQHMU4AHnEmO8rmkpkC08yROa7BBhpUOdU3Q References: From: "STARK, BARBARA H (ATTSI)" To: "Ray Bellis" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2011 17:08:50.0018 (UTC) FILETIME=[5863FC20:01CC5392] Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:09:18 -0000 Thanks Ray. I agree that the routing protocol discussion has been = interesting, but that we really need to take a more disciplined approach = if we're ever going to get consensus on what the "correct" technology = solutions are. I think that starting with the architecture is a good idea. This will = let us develop a holistic view of what it is we're trying to solve. I = think it's important that we also get some idea as to the relative = importance of the various architectural challenges (topology and =A73.2 = "Principles"?) over others. We need to be very careful to balance = functionality with ease-of-use in the recommendations we make. IMO, the = likelihood that functionality can be implemented bug-free and not cause = confusion (and not cause trouble calls to the service provider) is part = of the ease-of-use element. That is, if introduction of a function could = confuse people or do bad things more often than it is found to be = useful, then we don't need to be recommending that function as a MUST = for everybody, and perhaps not as a SHOULD for everybody, either. Understanding the whole picture will also let us consider how selection = of one technology to deal with one element impacts other selections.=20 I'll take a look at the referenced draft and provide my comments. Barbara > -----Original Message----- > From: homenet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Ray Bellis > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 10:58 AM > To: homenet@ietf.org > Subject: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft >=20 > We currently have draft-arkko-townsley-homenet-arch-00 as a candidate > for our first chartered WG item. >=20 > To ensure we can maintain some inertia following our session in = Quebec, > it would be appreciated if members could review this document. >=20 > I'd especially like to see some feedback on =A73.2 "Principles" since = I > get the impression that some of those may be quite contentious. >=20 > The discussion on LAN-side routing is interesting and I'm happy to see > that continue. However we must also work on the bigger picture before > getting rat-holed too much into implementation details. >=20 > Ray Bellis > Homenet co-chair >=20 > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Fri Aug 5 11:05:29 2011 Return-Path: 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 64C6121F8C0B for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:05:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8yjpN+AvpGKr for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail78.extendcp.co.uk (mail78.extendcp.co.uk [79.170.40.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7808B21F8C0E for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from client-82-26-175-170.pete.adsl.virginmedia.com ([82.26.175.170] helo=[192.168.1.80]) by mail78.extendcp.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1QpOmE-0005rt-Sx for homenet@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 19:05:43 +0100 Message-ID: <4E3C3149.1030703@gridmerge.com> Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 19:07:05 +0100 From: Robert Cragie Organization: Gridmerge Ltd. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: homenet@ietf.org References: <9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1@DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0599B4A0@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <0EB9D7EF-7B37-45B3-B6E4-5F946B19AC45@bogus.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms070604060301030007070503" X-Authenticated-As: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:05:29 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms070604060301030007070503 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi James, Comments inline, bracketed by Robert On 04/08/2011 8:33 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > On Aug 3, 2011, at 21:03 , Robert Cragie wrote: >> L2 bridging is OK if you can do it but not everything looks like Ether= net frames. Not only that but if we have multi-link subnets using route-o= ver, the router to host ratio goes up considerably. The problem space is = then multi-link subnets then multi-subnet site/zone/homenets. L3 routing = is the only way this is going to work in homenet. > This is not strictly true. ND-proxy is an alternative. Maybe so, but it seems complex. It strikes me L3 routing is a more=20 pragmatic approach, considering that is what is being done in, for=20 example, ROLL, with simple one-interface routers. > > I've been told it's not a *viable* alternative--- for unspecified and p= ossibly non-technical reasons-- but it is an alternative. I've got a big= bucket of popcorn to munch while I watch this discussion play out, and I= really don't have a strong opinion one way or another. > > My take, to the extent I have one, is that in comparison to L2-briding = and ND-proxy, L3 routing on home networks will be "a bag of hurt" (to bor= row a phrase from Le Grande Fromage), but if that's the direction from wh= ich rough consensus will emerge... well, okay then. Let's open up the ba= g. I don't doubt there will be a lot of issues to cover. L2 bridging=20 is clearly simple but has clear issues beyond the common L2 frame for=20 heterogenous subnetworks within the home, for example, with mesh=20 wireless networks with sleepy nodes. This to me seems like the=20 opportunity to take the bull emerging from your bag of cheese (how did=20 it get in there?!) by the horns. > > > -- > james woodyatt > member of technical staff, core os networking > > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > --------------ms070604060301030007070503 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIK0DCC BIowggNyoAMCAQICECf06hH0eobEbp27bqkXBwcwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwbzELMAkGA1UE BhMCU0UxFDASBgNVBAoTC0FkZFRydXN0IEFCMSYwJAYDVQQLEx1BZGRUcnVzdCBFeHRlcm5h bCBUVFAgTmV0d29yazEiMCAGA1UEAxMZQWRkVHJ1c3QgRXh0ZXJuYWwgQ0EgUm9vdDAeFw0w NTA2MDcwODA5MTBaFw0yMDA1MzAxMDQ4MzhaMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMC VVQxFzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNUIE5l dHdvcmsxITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVRO LVVTRVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAsjmFpPJ9q0E7YkY3rs3BYHW8OWX5ShpHornMSMxqmNVN NRm5pELlzkniii8efNIxB8dOtINknS4p1aJkxIW9hVE1eaROaJB7HHqkkqgX8pgV8pPMyaQy lbsMTzC9mKALi+VuG6JG+ni8om+rWV6lL8/K2m2qL+usobNqqrcuZzWLeeEeaYji5kbNoKXq vgvOdjp6Dpvq/NonWz1zHyLmSGHGTPNpsaguG7bUMSAsvIKKjqQOpdeJQ/wWWq8dcdcRWdq6 hw2v+vPhwvCkxWeM1tZUOt4KpLoDd7NlyP0e03RiqhjKaJMeoYV+9Udly/hNVyh00jT/MLbu 9mIwFIws6wIDAQABo4HhMIHeMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFK29mHo0tCb3+sQmVO8DveAky1QaMB0G A1UdDgQWBBSJgmd9xJ0mcABLtFBIfN49rgRufTAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwDwYDVR0TAQH/ BAUwAwEB/zB7BgNVHR8EdDByMDigNqA0hjJodHRwOi8vY3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9BZGRU cnVzdEV4dGVybmFsQ0FSb290LmNybDA2oDSgMoYwaHR0cDovL2NybC5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0Fk ZFRydXN0RXh0ZXJuYWxDQVJvb3QuY3JsMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQAZ2IkRbyispgCi 54fBm5AD236hEv0e8+LwAamUVEJrmgnEoG3XkJIEA2Z5Q3H8+G+v23ZF4jcaPd3kWQR4rBz0 g0bzes9bhHIt5UbBuhgRKfPLSXmHPLptBZ2kbWhPrXIUNqi5sf2/z3/wpGqUNVCPz4FtVbHd WTBK322gnGQfSXzvNrv042n0+DmPWq1LhTq3Du3Tzw1EovsEv+QvcI4l+1pUBrPQxLxtjftz Mizpm4QkLdZ/kXpoAlAfDj9N6cz1u2fo3BwuO/xOzf4CjuOoEwqlJkRl6RDyTVKnrtw+ymsy XEFs/vVdoOr/0fqbhlhtPZZH5f4ulQTCAMyOofK7MIIGPjCCBSagAwIBAgIRALZcFI008b3q kGPLKBbwWBIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwga4xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJVVDEX MBUGA1UEBxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoTFVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1QgTmV0d29y azEhMB8GA1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3QuY29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4tVVNF UkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgRW1haWwwHhcNMTAwODMwMDAwMDAw WhcNMTEwODMwMjM1OTU5WjCB5DE1MDMGA1UECxMsQ29tb2RvIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsgLSBQ RVJTT05BIE5PVCBWQUxJREFURUQxRjBEBgNVBAsTPVRlcm1zIGFuZCBDb25kaXRpb25zIG9m IHVzZTogaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21vZG8ubmV0L3JlcG9zaXRvcnkxHzAdBgNVBAsTFihjKTIw MDMgQ29tb2RvIExpbWl0ZWQxFjAUBgNVBAMTDVJvYmVydCBDcmFnaWUxKjAoBgkqhkiG9w0B CQEWG3JvYmVydC5jcmFnaWVAZ3JpZG1lcmdlLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEP ADCCAQoCggEBALQCfpvU4Hd5YvAYACEbYRrbYd2HAm4Sz43wHJwynBBkq5GamqO/SYNrg1ut iDsDQqvWnt1cHgZb4N1FFbvLqV84A0f4xc+EtWTZNYn+lfUBIsgR3RNajFEHnsrXnZN6sPdw lObJ1ol4FUWnFPB/A7/liT7G+FmAB+DAc2iTCNjfxOVxhmKShY/b8ZxIkO4fN418cNxHtq1w gm4SRHIv7VJfgseNKQd5u55RHQEmPgN7aiSyIhvAK4H9Pm1msZrklIoSqGpIR0K7gMpVmPRF bWyoPEgAmGYXRwsdvmUkq8W2wCkr9HA5NNL0D74B+RhIus0gfUL6lgnQR/6y9F31eY0CAwEA AaOCAh0wggIZMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59MB0GA1UdDgQWBBRp GoTqjgTJPeVwG/HaXEXWnn/AGDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADAgBgNV HSUEGTAXBggrBgEFBQcDBAYLKwYBBAGyMQEDBQIwEQYJYIZIAYb4QgEBBAQDAgUgMEYGA1Ud IAQ/MD0wOwYMKwYBBAGyMQECAQEBMCswKQYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHWh0dHBzOi8vc2VjdXJlLmNv bW9kby5uZXQvQ1BTMIGlBgNVHR8EgZ0wgZowTKBKoEiGRmh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuY29tb2RvY2Eu Y29tL1VUTi1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb25hbmRFbWFpbC5jcmwwSqBI oEaGRGh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuY29tb2RvLm5ldC9VVE4tVVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRp Y2F0aW9uYW5kRW1haWwuY3JsMGwGCCsGAQUFBwEBBGAwXjA2BggrBgEFBQcwAoYqaHR0cDov L2NydC5jb21vZG9jYS5jb20vVVROQUFBQ2xpZW50Q0EuY3J0MCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRw Oi8vb2NzcC5jb21vZG9jYS5jb20wJgYDVR0RBB8wHYEbcm9iZXJ0LmNyYWdpZUBncmlkbWVy Z2UuY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQA3I0iUCoFSHw/yM7Ra4cdmKkfZirA7N12pCneI VKHrpx4LJImjCEGNinH6G+PDrs632O96zXzaGqq+S2cA3lX5TJ2XdKz3EwPawB6uZf6sHUrW t5NMbwbotDQLTq0gXW6guL4ICyrmb6EdqO5km8UkgWR7lSzm8fxORPg+X41gu33zb6/cv7hV 3gmBbDPh3PVTyGfnAGOyUBSRCvzbrYtkByCMXUfdTdrx7jV1iD0TjxTJe8vJbTv3zjcIcTHG NnR+CZAx+qXTczLc8pL7DtDXokR5zZUuCgPGg/UWgUfBTUB6vibrAtrX9danRwaR61QCu3R6 HSg520a9rfVXa1NqMYIEYDCCBFwCAQEwgcQwga4xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJV VDEXMBUGA1UEBxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoTFVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1QgTmV0 d29yazEhMB8GA1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3QuY29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4t VVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgRW1haWwCEQC2XBSNNPG96pBj yygW8FgSMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJwMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZI hvcNAQkFMQ8XDTExMDgwNTE4MDcwNVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFDhOoHF69uavKb1RI2cq dgsdi0TWMF8GCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFSMFAwCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqG SIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCB1QYJ KwYBBAGCNxAEMYHHMIHEMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCVVQxFzAVBgNVBAcT DlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNUIE5ldHdvcmsxITAfBgNV BAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVROLVVTRVJGaXJzdC1D bGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsAhEAtlwUjTTxveqQY8soFvBYEjCB1wYL KoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgceggcQwga4xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJVVDEXMBUGA1UE BxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoTFVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1QgTmV0d29yazEhMB8G A1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3QuY29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4tVVNFUkZpcnN0 LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgRW1haWwCEQC2XBSNNPG96pBjyygW8FgSMA0G CSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAGCvjYgZpsUbRCYI2cKJtrZ3YMRttiqr8dXMxYdJOP9D/51BRVOz Kh5N2a/q2RoBz392oTbiuKiro9vu568oSXabv5ZzAK4AVGA0XuqCfxldGoRKCPqPG/SV/aPy ClsjkHxTeh358goU9IwPHu5dwHVy5a/tjM1AEUiXmdd9o91RBVm29Yeh0LOgZn8DX8qY8srX bNBKgdv9a2IGWQcRzSrQswb21rKL7sUhcfI49/JOKa3h2ToEZLT3gjelAqqSgt1L6HQbKw/j p5kp6wSFtjef6NUlG7LcIRCyWvucSC7h+AXkrvz/odWWtnubkbMWuLj56dRzyZDyIZUw+NUW 74oAAAAAAAA= --------------ms070604060301030007070503-- From frnkblk@iname.com Fri Aug 5 16:01:41 2011 Return-Path: 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 A56D421F8760 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 16:01:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uXwltOzwGEzS for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 16:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from premieronline.net (smtp2-4.premieronline.net [96.31.0.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D646C21F86BD for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 16:01:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=199.120.69.26; Received: from BULKFAMLAPTOP (unverified [199.120.69.26]) by premieronline.net (SurgeMail 5.0n) with ESMTP id 2561548-1729245 for multiple; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:01:16 -0500 From: "Frank Bulk" To: "'Eachus, Robert'" , "Brzozowski, John" , "Philip Homburg" , "Shane Amante" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 18:01:08 -0500 Message-ID: <006601cc53c3$93057bc0$b9107340$@iname.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHMUlh42Tp2jHZ0CEukIkticndUGZUO4cHg Content-Language: en-us X-Authenticated-User: fbulk@premieronline.net X-SpamDetect: : 0.000000 X-Info: aspam skipped due to (g_smite_skip_auth) X-MyRbl: Color=Yellow Age=0 Spam=0 Notspam=0 Stars=0 Good=8 Friend=643 Surbl=0 Catch=0 r=0 ip=199.120.69.26 X-IP-stats: Incoming Outgoing Last 0, First 878, in=13668502, out=51551, spam=0 Known=true ip=199.120.69.26 Cc: homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: frnkblk@iname.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 23:01:41 -0000 I'd like to add that if the firewall is manually enabled then the upstream should definitely not disable it. Frank -----Original Message----- From: homenet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eachus, Robert Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:42 PM To: Brzozowski, John; Philip Homburg; Shane Amante Cc: homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router IMHO it seems like due to security concerns, a home device should never disable security settings (like firewall) automatically based on information from its gateway or other up stream devices. On 8/2/11 7:08 PM, "Brzozowski, John" wrote: >Not sure either of the below could happen accidentally. The latter would >be especially concerning. > > >On 8/2/11 4:15 AM, "Philip Homburg" wrote: > >>What matters is whether >>any ISP will accidentally do something that would disable its customers' >>firewalls. Or, whether any ISP will come up with a network configuration >>that >>allows customers to disable each others firewalls. > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >homenet@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From pthubert@cisco.com Sat Aug 6 06:43:57 2011 Return-Path: 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 9B2C421F8764; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 06:43:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.832 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.832 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xIf619iAIVMm; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 06:43:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F9921F874E; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 06:43:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; l=2509; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312638257; x=1313847857; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=jLm7Qu7efFKWoqsHN6g3/v8JXqGZ+a9rE60lcS6Qwmw=; b=PnFFcsWiC5xPcA9Q+Gj9JkSqmm7lai0QjXtervFx6qHMa2ZYi3qYkDQc a/SsVjjqQMUPdBmJXNb8vBKkHPGk/A1NgBc6t9jplPTwHXtzVWblvjfNN EedOBCCW8fiax1FbPyljm4DDL0P+7p1ldcaU/rCz+TQysLZm7ihdFDuaL c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuAAAMpEPU6Q/khM/2dsb2JhbABCmB+PS3eBQAEBAQEDAQEBDwEdCjQLDAQCAQgRBAEBAQoGFwEGASYfCQgBAQQBEggah0+gTwGeGoVnXwSYE4tZ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,328,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="47334881" Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2011 13:44:16 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p76DiGBh016766; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 13:44:16 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-107.cisco.com ([144.254.74.82]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 6 Aug 2011 15:44:16 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 15:42:37 +0200 Message-ID: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A36FF@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <73A004D0-2CC2-4B19-A3B2-0ADB79081582@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6CE router Thread-Index: AcxSCOdaebvljJzRRC+a0gjIWtZa+wCNCHpQ References: <9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1@DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM><067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0599B4A0@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com><0EB9D7EF-7B37-45B3-B6E4-5F946B19AC45@bogus.com><80215711-1B7D-428C-9B7B-75D61BFAC66E@apple.com> <73A004D0-2CC2-4B19-A3B2-0ADB79081582@cisco.com> From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" , "james woodyatt" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Aug 2011 13:44:16.0223 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF0D3EF0:01CC543E] Cc: Joel Jaeggli , IPv6 Operations , homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 13:43:57 -0000 Hi James; As Ralph indicates, RFC4944 describes a L2.5 fragmentation mechanism and recommends a MTU of 1280 on 802.15.4 links. That fragmentation mechanism does not allow forwarding at L3 (each L3 hop needs to reassemble). It is also sensitive to frame loss, which sadly is frequent in 802.15.4 though it was mitigated in some environment such as industrial (see WiHART, ISA100.11a, 802.15.4e). Both issues (loss and forwarding) are addressed in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lowpan-simple-fragment-recover y but the draft is homeless at the moment. 4944 is also partially obsoleted by RFC-to-be 6282 for the header compression piece. Finally, I'd recommend to take a look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router-02. This work was initially a component of the registration based ND that was designed at 6LoWPAN, and was split in midflight. You'll see in the overview that the concept is to use a backbone router that proxies ND between the 802.15.4 meshes and a higher speed Ethernet (or emulated Ethernet such as WIFI infra mode), with the assumption that the backbone runs classical ND whereas the meshes use the registration-based ND. Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: homenet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Ralph Droms (rdroms) > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 8:12 PM > To: james woodyatt > Cc: Joel Jaeggli; IPv6 Operations; homenet@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [homenet] [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6CE > router >=20 > RFC 4944 >=20 > - Ralph >=20 > On Aug 3, 2011, at 2:09 PM 8/3/11, james woodyatt wrote: >=20 > > On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:00 , Joel Jaeggli wrote: > >> > >> got a better idea for interconnecting 802.15.4 and 802.3 networks than at > layer-3? > > > > How does 802.15.4 achieve the 1280 octet minimum MTU size required by > IPv6? I'm sure this is explained in an RFC somewhere, but I don't know. > Hoping someone knows off the top of their head and can quickly rattle off a > citation from memory. > > > > > > -- > > james woodyatt > > member of technical staff, core os networking > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > v6ops mailing list > > v6ops@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >=20 > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From jhw@apple.com Sat Aug 6 18:18:28 2011 Return-Path: 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 C57C721F86EE for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 18:18:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3i3rjdKgySuT for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 18:18:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-out.apple.com (bramley.apple.com [17.151.62.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC3521F86DC for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 18:18:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from relay11.apple.com ([17.128.113.48]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPS id <0LPJ00DEOAAY9921@mail-out.apple.com> for homenet@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 18:18:45 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807130-b7c45ae000001381-2b-4e3de797704d Received: from jimbu (jimbu.apple.com [17.151.62.37]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (RC4-MD5/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id FB.DD.04993.797ED3E4; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 18:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.1.250] (adit.conjury.org [75.101.54.88]) by cardamom.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPSA id <0LPJ001P3AB9D060@cardamom.apple.com> for homenet@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 18:18:45 -0700 (PDT) From: james woodyatt In-reply-to: <4E0BE5FF.3000409@gont.com.ar> Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 18:18:44 -0700 Message-id: References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar> <4E0BE5FF.3000409@gont.com.ar> To: Fernando Gont X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiON1OVXf6c1s/g6ZF1hbvFx1icWD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxr3NP5kKprNXLOw9w9rAeI+1i5GTQ0LAROLBqtlMELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hARamSTevrvKApLgFRCU+DH5HpDNwcEsIC9x8LwsSJhZQEvi+6NWFoj6pUwSV+++ YgRJCAuYSXRd/cEMYrMJqEh8u3wXbAGngLbEqgdfweIsAqoSjy7dZIQYJCKx9eNpJohdNhLz Fv9kghg6n1Gi5eIisCIRAQ2JeQs3Q10tL7G45TPjBEaBWUjum4Vw3ywk9y1gZF7FKFiUmpNY aWiol1hQkJOql5yfu4kRFHoNhQY7GNf+5D/EKMDBqMTDW1Bj6yfEmlhWXJl7iFGCg1lJhPfv CqAQb0piZVVqUX58UWlOavEhRmkOFiVx3nkfzPyEBNITS1KzU1MLUotgskwcnFINjNriGxOT dhxoqnHkyr0vc2gx7+0E2VtOz3NcpshcnNd0caWpjGL7Pwf9H9N/nDsrFV65/cqU6z3fl+Yc T5oqfb7E7uNZg8Av/5O/Gaqo+dvMvea7qvVq346EfzWTW87q5u9ctXTSg4qtExZO057OW5lc wMmrcILnl/GyQ4fO1k5WN1XNftK787ASS3FGoqEWc1FxIgBVhNGAOQIAAA== Cc: homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 01:18:28 -0000 On Jun 29, 2011, at 19:57 , Fernando Gont wrote: > On 06/29/2011 11:38 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: >> >> The opportunity for restoring e2e is one of the great opportunities of ipv6 > > This assumes that e2e reachability is a desired property for all networks. In the context of the HOMENET working group, one imagines that restoring general end-to-end reachability is arguably a worthy goal. If it isn't, then we should just throw in the towel now. If you ask me, there isn't any point in setting an open standard if the Internet is just going to be a straight road leading from every home in every town to a small handful of data centers owned and operated by an oligarchy of transnational mega-corporations. We should just hand the whole thing over to them and let their engineers design everything in secret. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, core os networking From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Sun Aug 7 01:18:35 2011 Return-Path: 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 5497621F86B9 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 01:18:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.388 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.211, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OlRslQxt5pod for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 01:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.nominet.org.uk (mail.nominet.org.uk [213.248.199.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7418D21F869D for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 01:18:33 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=ExE0s605FEAVxE616g6z9FXeSceMy23Pep3hXuE9zx9kV2GgSsRzIfa9 zl2NrP5Sr3mW3umoAj9mn/FNEJ5ue6KrHwO477QcJVmNRb/vM/os/p2pr HdnZHrJs7WsJZOP; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1312705137; x=1344241137; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[homenet]=20[homegate]=20HOMENET=20work ing=20group=20proposal|Date:=20Sun,=207=20Aug=202011=2008 :18:52=20+0000|Message-ID:=20<2C562EC6-89DC-4116-974A-884 5E8745361@nominet.org.uk>|To:=20james=20woodyatt=20|CC:=20"homenet@ietf.org"=20 |MIME-Version:=201.0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted- printable|In-Reply-To:=20|References:=20<4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.ne t>=20<4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar>=0D=0A=20=0D=0A=20<4E0BE5 FF.3000409@gont.com.ar>=0D=0A=20; bh=Hk2qtWMaLJDnu1A4vxuAEotWHOQMOVdcgkoKFBW2Z6U=; b=H2EsD1Bjo8oaMFpT60eqKToI21UpVaO28hZinzqyx726WdSfQGy2V5tj gkDrgctaNjZviaB74eIulxm9UbtzN8vh1BKKkGAUQzILHhmqsSMhx62FO SLMtv5ABXAjjhgG; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,332,1309734000"; d="scan'208";a="27726303" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx4.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2011 09:18:54 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 09:18:53 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: james woodyatt Thread-Topic: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Thread-Index: AQHMVJ/8PUVNcbfKy0SqJXFMOytXdpURDAmp Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 08:18:52 +0000 Message-ID: <2C562EC6-89DC-4116-974A-8845E8745361@nominet.org.uk> References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar> <4E0BE5FF.3000409@gont.com.ar> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 08:18:35 -0000 On 7 Aug 2011, at 02:18, "james woodyatt" wrote: > In the context of the HOMENET working group, one imagines that restoring = general end-to-end reachability is arguably a worthy goal. +1 (no hat) Ray= From sander@steffann.nl Sun Aug 7 04:50:31 2011 Return-Path: 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 2549821F8588 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 04:50:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.908 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.413, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RHgIThodQnPL for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 04:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:4038:0:16::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55E9E21F8571 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 04:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from macpro.10ww.steffann.nl (095-097-083-091.static.chello.nl [95.97.83.91]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1608D2009; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 13:50:50 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Sander Steffann In-Reply-To: <2C562EC6-89DC-4116-974A-8845E8745361@nominet.org.uk> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 13:50:50 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5836E642-94CC-450B-A1AF-F96655261AB6@steffann.nl> References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar> <4E0BE5FF.3000409@gont.com.ar> <2C562EC6-89DC-4116-974A-8845E8745361@nominet.org.uk> To: Ray Bellis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" , james woodyatt Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 11:50:31 -0000 >> In the context of the HOMENET working group, one imagines that = restoring general end-to-end reachability is arguably a worthy goal. >=20 > +1 +1 Sander From rogerj@gmail.com Sun Aug 7 05:57:28 2011 Return-Path: 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 F3F9321F85C4 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 05:57:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id grBJ8UrjJaKH for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 05:57:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D2021F8593 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 05:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwf5 with SMTP id 5so606154wwf.13 for ; Sun, 07 Aug 2011 05:57:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=I/L6QlzeYtHSYF843jV23szAe1OtYME2JMnRM0ReEpc=; b=A9TliTxDfHE69F/FNkPwCicWR9l2g+ywnYxL4OS6CVtpzT2kcEF6NSXkMhVx2E88Cf op6zvYEWtidJXZUTTOzazzjhozDfEeZ39qzy7xRm4rzfVnCYcHAXxv70+okyrFi+DXpk HXD/s5a65GB8eiJzI/Xe9Tl+qgrsRWzMbvxBw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.60.143 with SMTP id p15mr3686963wbh.37.1312721866695; Sun, 07 Aug 2011 05:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.141.74 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 05:57:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar> <4E0BE5FF.3000409@gont.com.ar> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 14:57:46 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roger_J=F8rgensen?= To: james woodyatt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: homenet@ietf.org, Fernando Gont Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 12:57:28 -0000 On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 3:18 AM, james woodyatt wrote: > In the context of the HOMENET working group, one imagines that restoring = general end-to-end reachability is arguably a worthy goal. =A0 +1 :-) --=20 Roger Jorgensen=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 | rogerj@gmail.com=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no=A0=A0 | roger@jorgensen.no From pthubert@cisco.com Sun Aug 7 06:16:13 2011 Return-Path: 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 0E00F21F86BC for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 06:16:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.256 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id urofuvmG37GP for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 06:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1647721F856A for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 06:16:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; l=1724; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312722995; x=1313932595; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=Vh8X6Jgr2M6Ig9is6pwZK21lTrlgbMK1+UgqpN3qwAw=; b=J5LS2na5PFVaM5AdZtyPILXEqb91M7zgcFchm577VlqzVqrvEsYVgSzP u1OuJ4UnqUZ0KzQurcDSKIxGgC8YZU9ZQVd2eCyqD7ylz38CGZnG15HLa vFM2DNna3WEzzj4IEfNx2CSDFjf22xbSaK4iO1PKjZedc/iwUpoxz5Zn3 k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuAAAPKPPk6Q/khN/2dsb2JhbABCmByPS3eBQAEBAQEDAQEBDwEdPgsMBAIBCBEEAQEBCgYXAQYBIAYfCQgBAQQBEggMDodPmzcBnTWFZ18Ehy2QZoRdhnw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,332,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="107560709" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2011 13:16:33 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p77DGXZk028703; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 13:16:33 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-107.cisco.com ([144.254.74.82]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:16:33 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:16:01 +0200 Message-ID: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3747@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal Thread-Index: AcxVAaF3LIJhgsdOS3GaGCsDxczYuQAABfjQ References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar><4E0BE5FF.3000409@gont.com.ar> From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roger_J=F8rgensen?= , "james woodyatt" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2011 13:16:33.0256 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A425E80:01CC5504] Cc: homenet@ietf.org, Fernando Gont Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 13:16:13 -0000 Looks obvious, but is it? In one hand, we want the capability to reach anywhere we're allowed to = from home. OTOH, if anything in my home is reachable from anywhere, we = are back to the firewall paradigm.=20 There is an alternate model based on L3 overlays that was presented in = various places under names such as route projection, community of = interest or on-demand VPNs. That model forms dynamic overlays that act as L3 VLANs. Prefixes are no = more injected in the main infrastructure but only projected within the = overlay. This allows the model to scale with good mobility properties = since an overlay separates the locator and the identifier, which BTW can = be of different Address Families. I wanted to ask for a BOF in Taipei to discuss that model. Would anyone = be interested? Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: homenet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Roger J=F8rgensen > Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 2:58 PM > To: james woodyatt > Cc: homenet@ietf.org; Fernando Gont > Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal >=20 > On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 3:18 AM, james woodyatt wrote: > > > In the context of the HOMENET working group, one imagines that = restoring > general end-to-end reachability is arguably a worthy goal. =A0 >=20 > +1 :-) >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- >=20 > Roger Jorgensen=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 | > rogerj@gmail.com=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | - IPv6 is The Key! > http://www.jorgensen.no=A0=A0 | roger@jorgensen.no > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From daveoran@orandom.net Sun Aug 7 06:42:24 2011 Return-Path: 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 B96F921F855F for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 06:42:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Favjsqt+MmRj for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 06:42:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spark.crystalorb.net (spark.crystalorb.net [IPv6:2001:470:d:21b:3c00::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3951921F84FB for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 06:42:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sjc-vpnasa-587.cisco.com (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) (authenticated bits=0) by spark.crystalorb.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p77Dg6Z5020664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 7 Aug 2011 06:42:09 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: David R Oran In-Reply-To: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3747@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 09:41:45 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <308C2F13-D9B3-4A5E-B046-AFF8CF9FF00A@orandom.net> References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar><4E0BE5FF.3000409@gont.com.ar> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3747@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roger_J=F8rgensen?= , homenet@ietf.org, james woodyatt , Fernando Gont Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 13:42:24 -0000 On Aug 7, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Looks obvious, but is it? >=20 Yes. > In one hand, we want the capability to reach anywhere we're allowed to = from home. OTOH, if anything in my home is reachable from anywhere, we = are back to the firewall paradigm.=20 >=20 Why? You are still back to all the security disadvantages of firewalls - = soft chewy inside, etc. Reachability does not convey access = authorization. Devices must either protect themselves directly or = delegate that protection to a proxy of some sort (*not* necessarily a = firewall).=20 > There is an alternate model based on L3 overlays that was presented in = various places under names such as route projection, community of = interest or on-demand VPNs. >=20 > That model forms dynamic overlays that act as L3 VLANs. Prefixes are = no more injected in the main infrastructure but only projected within = the overlay. This allows the model to scale with good mobility = properties since an overlay separates the locator and the identifier, = which BTW can be of different Address Families. >=20 sounds pretty complicated - if it requires manual configuration it may b = a non-starter. > I wanted to ask for a BOF in Taipei to discuss that model. Would = anyone be interested? >=20 Not enough data here to judge. > Pascal >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: homenet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Roger J=F8rgensen >> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 2:58 PM >> To: james woodyatt >> Cc: homenet@ietf.org; Fernando Gont >> Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal >>=20 >> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 3:18 AM, james woodyatt wrote: >> >>> In the context of the HOMENET working group, one imagines that = restoring >> general end-to-end reachability is arguably a worthy goal. >>=20 >> +1 :-) >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >>=20 >> Roger Jorgensen | >> rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! >> http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From russw@riw.us Sun Aug 7 07:08:09 2011 Return-Path: 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 C2AC321F8593 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 07:08:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.189 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.410, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mHlC8ApuRIvY for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 07:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ecbiz91.inmotionhosting.com (ecbiz91.inmotionhosting.com [70.39.248.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE71B21F8591 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 07:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpe-066-057-007-246.nc.res.rr.com ([66.57.7.246] helo=[192.168.100.60]) by ecbiz91.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qq41n-0004uu-80 for homenet@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Aug 2011 10:08:31 -0400 Message-ID: <4E3E9C5D.6050403@riw.us> Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 10:08:29 -0400 From: Russ White User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: homenet@ietf.org References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar><4E0BE5FF.3000409@gont.com.ar> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3747@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <308C2F13-D9B3-4A5E-B046-AFF8CF9FF00A@orandom.net> In-Reply-To: <308C2F13-D9B3-4A5E-B046-AFF8CF9FF00A@orandom.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ecbiz91.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - riw.us Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 14:08:09 -0000 >> In one hand, we want the capability to reach anywhere we're allowed to from home. OTOH, if anything in my home is reachable from anywhere, we are back to the firewall paradigm. >> > Why? You are still back to all the security disadvantages of firewalls - soft chewy inside, etc. Reachability does not convey access authorization. Devices must either protect themselves directly or delegate that protection to a proxy of some sort (*not* necessarily a firewall). It seems like to me we're making things very complex (?)... In any given network, there needs to be some amount of policy. Some of that policy is best centralized, some of it is best distributed. And more than one layer of defense is always better than only one layer of defense (though you can go overboard in the other direction). Take a house for instance... You have locked doors, and yet you still have passwords. You have passwords and safes, yet you still have locked doors... It's always a question of where the most efficient spot is to implement any bit of policy/security, not whether or not that policy/security is needed. Whether the policy that's needed is on something called a "firewall," or a "bridge between multiple control planes," or... It doesn't matter. Policy is policy. Or maybe I don't understand the question... :-) Russ From cb.list6@gmail.com Sun Aug 7 07:35:03 2011 Return-Path: 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 327C521F86C0 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 07:35:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.436 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DMP2B61nxrdh for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 07:35:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725CA21F86BC for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 07:35:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so2374358wyg.31 for ; Sun, 07 Aug 2011 07:35:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=eAoqbWyTkE1TpCqdvE6jyDpIdvDKl/rHYfs4lvHnBVo=; b=HfCV71tt7b8tjDGygoskywoG7vR9GRq3j4cBybFXOiaZblgcZbOuYJ7hn9lDhMt8WB HYSlrlXhvSFyyJXcGiZlQYl0NRGF/EhKT0GFht/wAh/nl5Ti4PC4vW9v/8dZ0GMAzacC aOL9NtkK/Q7bevTV3VpQhRfbvyYINakrnQOYc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.165.129 with SMTP id e1mr961836wel.103.1312727723201; Sun, 07 Aug 2011 07:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.177.213 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 07:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.177.213 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 07:35:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5836E642-94CC-450B-A1AF-F96655261AB6@steffann.nl> References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar> <4E0BE5FF.3000409@gont.com.ar> <2C562EC6-89DC-4116-974A-8845E8745361@nominet.org.uk> <5836E642-94CC-450B-A1AF-F96655261AB6@steffann.nl> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 07:35:21 -0700 Message-ID: From: Cameron Byrne To: Sander Steffann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e649d9dea0d3e504a9eb3d4b Cc: Ray Bellis , "homenet@ietf.org" , james woodyatt Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 14:35:03 -0000 --0016e649d9dea0d3e504a9eb3d4b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Aug 7, 2011 4:51 AM, "Sander Steffann" wrote: > > >> In the context of the HOMENET working group, one imagines that restoring general end-to-end reachability is arguably a worthy goal. > > > > +1 > > > +1 > +1 Cb > Sander > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet --0016e649d9dea0d3e504a9eb3d4b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1


On Aug 7, 2011 4:51 AM, "Sander Steffann" <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
>
> >> In the context of the HOMENET working group, one imagines that restoring general end-to-end reachability is arguably a worthy goal.
> >
> > +1
>
>
> +1
>

+1

Cb
> Sander
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

--0016e649d9dea0d3e504a9eb3d4b-- From wouter.cloetens@softathome.com Sun Aug 7 15:56:59 2011 Return-Path: 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 08B8F21F84EF for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:56:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tz6DBy19v6EE for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e2big.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:d5b::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0CE21F854D for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:56:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [188.140.8.206] (helo=[192.168.1.103]) by e2big.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QqCHW-0004gk-0E for homenet@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:57:18 +0200 Message-ID: <4E3F184A.8070207@softathome.com> Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:57:14 +0200 From: Wouter Cloetens User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: homenet@ietf.org References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar><4E0BE5FF.3000409@gont.com.ar> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3747@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <308C2F13-D9B3-4A5E-B046-AFF8CF9FF00A@orandom.net> <4E3E9C5D.6050403@riw.us> In-Reply-To: <4E3E9C5D.6050403@riw.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 22:56:59 -0000 On 07/08/11 16:08, Russ White wrote: >>> In one hand, we want the capability to reach anywhere we're allowed to from home. OTOH, if anything in my home is reachable from anywhere, we are back to the firewall paradigm. >>> >> Why? You are still back to all the security disadvantages of firewalls - soft chewy inside, etc. Reachability does not convey access authorization. Devices must either protect themselves directly or delegate that protection to a proxy of some sort (*not* necessarily a firewall). > > It seems like to me we're making things very complex (?)... In any given > network, there needs to be some amount of policy. Some of that policy is > best centralized, some of it is best distributed. And more than one > layer of defense is always better than only one layer of defense (though > you can go overboard in the other direction). > > Take a house for instance... You have locked doors, and yet you still > have passwords. You have passwords and safes, yet you still have locked > doors... It's always a question of where the most efficient spot is to > implement any bit of policy/security, not whether or not that > policy/security is needed. > > Whether the policy that's needed is on something called a "firewall," or > a "bridge between multiple control planes," or... It doesn't matter. > Policy is policy. > > Or maybe I don't understand the question... :-) Your analysis is spot on. Yes, firewalls will happen. CPE routers, at least the ISP-managed variety, will ship with those on by default. No, firewalls don't necessarily break end-to-end connectivity. Not as badly as NAT does. Indeed, the average user cannot be expected to manually administer a firewall. Yes, there are solutions (e.g. UPnP IGD) that manage IPv4 port forwarding and IPv6 firewall pin-holing without user intervention. Is that secure? It's as secure as allowing someone already inside your house to open the door to let someone else in. Whether you want to allow that is a matter of policy; you generally don't want that in a military facility, you do want it in a residence. If you want to keep criminals out of your house, disabling the ability to open the front door from the inside is the wrong approach. Removing the front door, just to be sure that the milkman can deliver milk straight to your fridge, and the electricity company guy can read your meter while you're not home, is not the best policy in most parts of the world either. Indeed, none of this needs to be particularly complicated. Everybody understands your house and locked doors metaphor. Being able to open the front door from the inside is not the problem of the company that sells front doors with locks and security bolts, and that is understood by everyone. People are perfectly content with the soft, chewy inside nature of their homes. Like you, I don't understand why this issue should be so contentious. People who want to run complex services inside their homes normally have the expertise to perform a manual policy change. Those are the people who are managing just fine today to set up manual port forwardings on residential gateways. That is the exception case; it must be possible, but not automatic. bfn, Wouter -- Architect Core Gateway SoftAtHome R&D RGW http://www.softathome.com/ From marka@isc.org Sun Aug 7 17:15:49 2011 Return-Path: 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 5E97C21F8799 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 17:15:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.604 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id reRzRbubA4ol for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 17:15:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D618921F874F for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 17:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E7C65F98BF; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 00:15:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:6233:4bff:fe01:7585]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C54C216C7B; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 00:15:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D43128AAC5; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:15:35 +1000 (EST) To: Wouter Cloetens From: Mark Andrews References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar><4E0BE5FF.3000409@gont.com.ar> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3747@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <308C2F13-D9B3-4A5E-B046-AFF8CF9FF00A@orandom.net> <4E3E9C5D.6050403@riw.us> <4E3F184A.8070207@softathome.com> In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:57:14 +0200." <4E3F184A.8070207@softathome.com> Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:15:35 +1000 Message-Id: <20110808001535.C4D43128AAC5@drugs.dv.isc.org> Cc: homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:15:49 -0000 One think I haven't seen mentions w.r.t. firewalls is protecting the rest of the world from compromised home machines. While ISP's should be doing BCP 38 filtering, CPE devices should also be filtering outgoing traffic that is not from a valid prefix. The border CPE also needs to filter ULA sourced traffic. Similary, if you are going to have a squishy inside, you need to filter attempts to spoof internal sources. Even if you open up the firewall to allow incoming from anywhere, these filters should require a second step to be taken to be removed. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org From mark@mbaugher.com Mon Aug 8 00:15:07 2011 Return-Path: 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 0A6F621F8505 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 00:15:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c3OlbHC-zYt2 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 00:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (agora.rdrop.com [IPv6:2607:f678:1010::34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C135221F85E3 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 00:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sjc-vpn6-1275.cisco.com (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) (authenticated bits=0) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.7) with ESMTP id p787FDVg041490 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 8 Aug 2011 00:15:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@mbaugher.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Mark Baugher In-Reply-To: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3747@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 00:15:08 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar><4E0BE5FF.3000409@gont.com.ar> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3747@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roger_J=F8rgensen?= , homenet@ietf.org, james woodyatt , Fernando Gont Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 07:15:07 -0000 On Aug 7, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Looks obvious, but is it? >=20 > In one hand, we want the capability to reach anywhere we're allowed to = from home. OTOH, if anything in my home is reachable from anywhere, we = are back to the firewall paradigm.=20 I want my mobile phone to connect to my home NAS from anywhere without = explicitly poking a hole in a firewall. It's not so much an inside = versus outside issue; it's about ensuring that the devices are trusted = to conform to a particular policy prior to establishing a connection. I = think this generally requires manual association by the user, such as in = a pairing ceremony with mutual key signing. In general, this can't be = made "plug and play" because the networks that are used might contain = uninvited hardware or software. >=20 > There is an alternate model based on L3 overlays that was presented in = various places under names such as route projection, community of = interest or on-demand VPNs. >=20 > That model forms dynamic overlays that act as L3 VLANs. Prefixes are = no more injected in the main infrastructure but only projected within = the overlay. This allows the model to scale with good mobility = properties since an overlay separates the locator and the identifier, = which BTW can be of different Address Families. Protocols for securely associating devices seems to be the place to = start, along with default policies for ACLs, etc. Mark >=20 > I wanted to ask for a BOF in Taipei to discuss that model. Would = anyone be interested? >=20 > Pascal >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: homenet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Roger J=F8rgensen >> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 2:58 PM >> To: james woodyatt >> Cc: homenet@ietf.org; Fernando Gont >> Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal >>=20 >> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 3:18 AM, james woodyatt wrote: >> >>> In the context of the HOMENET working group, one imagines that = restoring >> general end-to-end reachability is arguably a worthy goal. >>=20 >> +1 :-) >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >>=20 >> Roger Jorgensen | >> rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! >> http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >=20 >=20 >=20 From i.grok@comcast.net Mon Aug 8 06:23:26 2011 Return-Path: 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 ECE7D21F873D for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 06:23:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.545 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JQrxiax98q8B for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 06:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.96]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F2321F8726 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 06:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.28]) by qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id HpDa1h0030cQ2SLA9pPoCv; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:23:48 +0000 Received: from odin.ulthar.us ([68.33.77.0]) by omta10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id HpPn1h00400PQ6U8WpPon9; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:23:49 +0000 Received: from odin.ulthar.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by odin.ulthar.us (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p78DNlCL008072 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:23:47 -0400 Received: (from draco@localhost) by odin.ulthar.us (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p78DNkZK008070 for homenet@ietf.org; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:23:46 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:23:46 -0400 From: Scott Schmit To: homenet@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110808132346.GA7946@odin.ulthar.us> Mail-Followup-To: homenet@ietf.org References: <9E2FAA01116B084A9B10EC34D6015A07482B9D9DB1@DENEXMAIL1.ARRS.ARRISI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [homenet] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:23:27 -0000 On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:09:37PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote: > In your letter dated Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:42:53 -0600 you wrote: > > The second case is a CPE ingress router with N routers behind > > it. In this case, I humbly submit that anything where N is > > greater than 2 says medium sized business maybe larger. > > From a layer 3 point of view, I think you are right (but these things are > hard to predict). What happens in practice though is that routers cost about > the same as switches. So people may stack routers in weird ways just because > they need more ports somewhere, or a wireless basestation, etc. > > It not always easy to figure out how to switch off the routing functionality > and get the device to become a switch. Moreover, most users are probably > not even aware that there is a difference. > > So in practice, I wouldn't be surprised if routers would get stacked quite > deep. Exactly. My friend's parents have a DSL router followed by a wireless router. Weirdly, the DSL router only has one Ethernet port and no wireless (I find it hard to call it a router, but it does NAT rather than bridging). Looking around at local stores, this was the available equipment. If you think about it, it makes sense: given a choice between selling a WAP and getting it returned because "it doesn't work" (because ISPs will only assign 1 IPv4 address) and selling a wireless router that "just works" even if they're already using a router, the choice is obvious. And there really aren't any wireless switches that I've ever seen. Incidentally, if I did some kind of virtualization on my laptop on that network, that would require my laptop to act as a router (using libvirt). So now I'm 3 deep. I can also imagine another new technology pushing to 3 deep because the user bought something to add to their setup rather than to replace it (didn't feel like rewiring stuff, afraid to break it, not a superset of required functions, whatever). -- Scott Schmit From jhw@apple.com Mon Aug 8 10:43:29 2011 Return-Path: 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 765F421F8B2F for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:43:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QkrOJAmlNYlH for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-out.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.151.62.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F57421F8B1F for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:43:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from relay13.apple.com ([17.128.113.29]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPS id <0LPM0025UEL3GPY0@mail-out.apple.com> for homenet@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:43:54 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1180711d-b7c5fae000001427-5d-4e401ff95d84 Received: from kencur (kencur.apple.com [17.151.62.38]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (RC4-MD5/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id BE.A1.05159.9FF104E4; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 67-218-103-107.cust.layer42.net (67-218-103-107.cust.layer42.net [67.218.103.107]) by kencur.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPSA id <0LPM00IP6EL2VG90@kencur.apple.com> for homenet@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:43:53 -0700 (PDT) From: james woodyatt In-reply-to: <20110808001535.C4D43128AAC5@drugs.dv.isc.org> Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:43:51 -0700 Message-id: <8BDBCD4B-F65A-4D0B-8D48-8377C7C6A97D@apple.com> References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar> <4E0BE5FF.3000409@gont.com.ar> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3747@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <308C2F13-D9B3-4A5E-B046-AFF8CF9FF00A@orandom.net> <4E3E9C5D.6050403@riw.us> <4E3F184A.8070207@softathome.com> <20110808001535.C4D43128AAC5@drugs.dv.isc.org> To: Mark Andrews X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiON1OTfenvIOfwc21shbvFx1icWD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxvv2+YwFk9gqLl46wtLA+J6li5GTQ0LAROLM1oXMELaYxIV7 69lAbCGBdiaJwx8ZQWxeAUGJH5PvAdVzcDALyEscPC8LEmYW0JL4/qgVKMwFVH6YSeLK1E9g c4QFHCTev4KYwyagIvHt8l0mEJtTwFpi9c8TYDaLgKrEgWnvWCEG6Uj8vbeRFWKXjUTT8gnM EEMbWCTeHFoDdoSIgIJE29tXTBCHykssbvnMOIFRYBaS+2Yh3DcLyX0LGJlXMQoWpeYkVhoa 6yUWFOSk6iXn525iBAVeQ6HsDsb9P/kPMQpwMCrx8HLyO/gJsSaWFVfmHmKU4GBWEuHN4QEK 8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES5533wcxPSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUIJsvEwSnVwLh+2461sr0V Ai3FUnvXXd8r9sJwSXMSo1Imw9Tndzf+tZra+jmvJmKlkcQB0WkcehrcOxleC3t8v3fAyjzM cu6LjjvcKfMu3g74t9ygzfHew75Let9NIwT3X1shHW7peL5QjKd+++fD+5f81s3c0VaaWfA6 97Wo6YYfm+Y5fK/YcP3TAqNJZmZKLMUZiYZazEXFiQC/NKPEOAIAAA== Cc: HOMENET Working Group Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:43:29 -0000 On Aug 7, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > One think I haven't seen mentions w.r.t. firewalls is protecting the rest of the world from compromised home machines. While ISP's should be doing BCP 38 filtering, CPE devices should also be filtering outgoing traffic that is not from a valid prefix. [...] Then I would direct your attention to Recommendation #5 in RFC 6092, which informs the implementers of residential firewalls thusly: REC-5: Outbound packets MUST NOT be forwarded if the source address in their outer IPv6 header does not have a unicast prefix configured for use by globally reachable nodes on the interior network. Does that about cover it? -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, core os networking From ot@cisco.com Mon Aug 8 10:48:07 2011 Return-Path: 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 E5C9C21F8B3C for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:48:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BpQjJCbZO4UL for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0978421F8B3B for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:48:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=ot@cisco.com; l=639; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312825713; x=1314035313; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=iXLFKsGgA1T7GZHLRlMI98uySytgv8jHitMajrlvxOE=; b=HmoRnUWySoa0s8qumNCoRkXQOXz8n0aZTomEDUf+tHCQT5caqXKHsSyt I0BW0ydGa8nUcatNBCeWsYl/nj0hMlhkGgT9AyzUxqx/FzZs6LF73LXSI lIeMiyM9ukSxjLR4Hg9qxiSrM7/9Gu5JbAhX39izoPdYm32S7ghgcYJXM A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAD4gQE6Q/khM/2dsb2JhbABDpyZ3gUABAQEBAgESASc/BQsLRlcGNYdLn0wBnkeFaF8EkwKQag X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,338,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="47597047" Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Aug 2011 17:48:32 +0000 Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp576.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp576.cisco.com [10.61.66.64]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p78HmVjM016262; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 17:48:31 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: <20110808001535.C4D43128AAC5@drugs.dv.isc.org> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 19:48:31 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <3F788E7C-2A50-4591-A216-13DA64340A66@cisco.com> References: <4E0AE696.4020603@piuha.net> <4E0BDCF3.1090003@gont.com.ar><4E0BE5FF.3000409@gont.com.ar> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D053A3747@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <308C2F13-D9B3-4A5E-B046-AFF8CF9FF00A@orandom.net> <4E3E9C5D.6050403@riw.us> <4E3F184A.8070207@softathome.com> <20110808001535.C4D43128AAC5@drugs.dv.isc.org> To: Mark Andrews X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: homenet@ietf.org, Wouter Cloetens Subject: Re: [homenet] [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:48:08 -0000 Mark, > One think I haven't seen mentions w.r.t. firewalls is protecting > the rest of the world from compromised home machines. While ISP's > should be doing BCP 38 filtering, CPE devices should also be > filtering outgoing traffic that is not from a valid prefix. The > border CPE also needs to filter ULA sourced traffic. > > Similary, if you are going to have a squishy inside, you need to > filter attempts to spoof internal sources. > > Even if you open up the firewall to allow incoming from anywhere, > these filters should require a second step to be taken to be removed. RFC6204, ULA-4, S-2 cheers, Ole From lee.howard@twcable.com Tue Aug 16 13:40:40 2011 Return-Path: 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 552CD11E80E6 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:40:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.03 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.03 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AVVeCVV7Uv0V for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:40:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F2911E80AB for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:40:39 -0700 (PDT) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.14 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,235,1312171200"; d="scan'208";a="262967248" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.14]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 16 Aug 2011 16:38:52 -0400 Received: from PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.27]) by PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.14]) with mapi; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:41:28 -0400 From: "Howard, Lee" To: Ray Bellis , "homenet@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:41:26 -0400 Thread-Topic: Homenet Architecture Draft Thread-Index: AQHMU4AHnEmO8rmkpkC08yROa7BBhpUf/4Sg Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:40:40 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: homenet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f Of Ray > Bellis > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 10:58 AM > To: homenet@ietf.org > Subject: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft > > We currently have draft-arkko-townsley-homenet-arch-00 as a candidate for= our first > chartered WG item. > > To ensure we can maintain some inertia following our session in Quebec, i= t would be > appreciated if members could review this document. ISTR mention of an interim meeting, but haven't heard anything since Quebec= . > I'd especially like to see some feedback on =A73.2 "Principles" since I g= et the impression that > some of those may be quite contentious. OK: Largest Possible Subnets. I disagree with this principle. Why is switching (or bridging) better than= routing? Is policy easier to write for MAC addresses than IP addresses? Is the netw= ork more resilient to devices (including other routers) being added, removed, interc= onnected, or moved? One should have more than a /64 per interface, so when a new router is join= ed, it can get a prefix, rather than reconfiguring addressing throughout the home. Transparent end-to-end. Yes, as long as "addressable" !=3D "reachable". We are not ruling out ACLs= or firewalls. I will return to the firewall diatribe, if I must. "Administratively unrea= chable" is transparent, altered IP headers are not. IP Connectivity between All Nodes. Inconsistent with the above, and incons= istent with any kind of security policy (e.g., don't let guests reach my file shar= e). Says, "IP-layer connectivity" then says "at the link layer where possible"= . I thought those were different layers. Intelligent Policy. I don't know what this section means. No QoS, WRED, o= r AQM? There's a terminology difference between fun-multi-router and homenet-archi= tecutre: is a LAN a single segment, or a home-area network? Lee This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Tue Aug 16 14:09:07 2011 Return-Path: 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 40DE621F8B00 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:09:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.242 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.242 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.644, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YVZSXiZN8m1z for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.knowthenet.org.uk (mx1.knowthenet.org.uk [213.248.199.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76FF421F8A95 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:09:05 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: MIME-Version; b=ocd+ng9utOXBn2oqqREmnrGf74vNYIMy9Y+2ZqGsnychbocRcc5lo5+F S7QwF5wfFMPnIg5+4yNM5Ck3Pe1HfLb9GLuD2XuVRtBvIYztnHWsfnIeZ 9KK/MAwkPlQqHkf; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1313528996; x=1345064996; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[homenet]=20Homenet=20Architecture=20Dr aft|Date:=20Tue,=2016=20Aug=202011=2021:09:49=20+0000 |Message-ID:=20<9E00E8DF-06EB-4870-B55C-DFF65013119B@nomi net.org.uk>|To:=20"Howard,=20Lee"=20|CC:=20"homenet@ietf.org"=20 |MIME-Version:=201.0|In-Reply-To:=20 |References:=20=0D=0A=20; bh=EY1Dejsh5l8y9BlxUmCu8GFlEzSo0KufALK5yjgSvsU=; b=2eNLnxVhXDIe8bj/KtswnY1Txjr0wUsyzI4mYtgGqqwS/h6upsLXI2Mf u6U7BuNusy6vxL85swbAXy3uspWFsTKy/HsgNDijgVYhW11VTFwZYCxeH 0r1FzpqgsG2GFyl; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,235,1312153200"; d="scan'208,217";a="34770354" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 16 Aug 2011 22:09:51 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:09:50 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: "Howard, Lee" Thread-Topic: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft Thread-Index: AQHMXFjVlakAWN4/0kiFtnrpYiI8Mg== Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:09:49 +0000 Message-ID: <9E00E8DF-06EB-4870-B55C-DFF65013119B@nominet.org.uk> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9E00E8DF06EB4870B55CDFF65013119Bnominetorguk_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Architecture Draft X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:09:07 -0000 --_000_9E00E8DF06EB4870B55CDFF65013119Bnominetorguk_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 16 Aug 2011, at 21:41, Howard, Lee wrote: ISTR mention of an interim meeting, but haven't heard anything since Quebec= . It is being planned at the moment. Please watch this space - I hope to be able to announce dates and venue lat= er this week. Ray --_000_9E00E8DF06EB4870B55CDFF65013119Bnominetorguk_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <16ddbd47-fc55-491b-b737-3a6950091fc2> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 16 Aug 2011, at 21= :41, Howard, Lee wrote:

ISTR mention of an interim m= eeting, but haven't heard anything since Quebec.

=

It is being planned at the moment.

= Please watch this space - I hope to be able to announce dates and venue lat= er this week.

Ray

= --_000_9E00E8DF06EB4870B55CDFF65013119Bnominetorguk_-- From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Thu Aug 18 14:22:03 2011 Return-Path: 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 77F441F0C3C for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:22:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.622, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rCA0FDpMRLbE for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:22:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.knowthenet.org.uk (mx1.knowthenet.org.uk [213.248.199.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0A221F8B02 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:22:02 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=G49jRQcqRyVWWRMQ5pg3hYum68yBIwioUG4+Qf6wz3kPSqLoBzAJtpew eKliHyn4kp89HpdlPLaZesZ3jf4ktjuYQAa+FMWfWPo0nADPQrJhZYocX j4MUN+Et/v1KPSB; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1313702577; x=1345238577; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20IETF=2081=20meeting=20minutes|Date:=20Thu,=20 18=20Aug=202011=2021:22:54=20+0000|Message-ID:=20<1B72748 6-6B54-4EC8-B835-B65B915A5BE1@nominet.org.uk>|To:=20"home net@ietf.org"=20|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |Content-ID:=20 |In-Reply-To:=20|References:=20; bh=SooIdK9U4wbVM1K9+BLjAatzDrF8za7xbhPXZKxsE44=; b=zBydmfib4HG2tWMX8zHiDF8evy8opHAEfvjaiepyAttJuCw84OvvsZH5 PNBYmfGf40zlhPpiiHOBiL0oTfbYjiLQeXonv1FTJI8ace4IqNfYs7nQ6 ECI1TmMvbQw9Ak8; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,247,1312153200"; d="scan'208";a="34805014" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 18 Aug 2011 22:22:56 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:22:56 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: "homenet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IETF 81 meeting minutes Thread-Index: AQHMXez+lG943u/UokOUo+dP2rDYcw== Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:22:54 +0000 Message-ID: <1B727486-6B54-4EC8-B835-B65B915A5BE1@nominet.org.uk> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [homenet] IETF 81 meeting minutes X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:22:03 -0000 Final minutes of the IETF 81 WG session are now available at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/homenet.txt No changes (other than formatting) were made from the draft minutes publish= ed two weeks ago. Ray and Mark Homenet WG Chairs From mcr@sandelman.ca Sat Aug 27 13:56:39 2011 Return-Path: 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 A4E0C21F8B0D for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:56:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.455 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.409, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P9XtrlvB0S8o for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C2CE21F8B0A for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (unknown [192.75.139.128]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0859A0067 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:57:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (marajade.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by marajade.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C956D98C6E for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:58:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailer: MH-E 8.1; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:58:26 -0400 Message-ID: <21167.1314478706@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: [homenet] resend of message from July X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:56:39 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I sent this to "fun" back in July, it bounced, but I didn't get onto homenet until now. I will read archives now. Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:15:33 -0400 Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Section 3.2 is the meat, and I think maybe we will violently agree on many points, and mis-understand our objections on others. Let me start then with: Largest Possible Subnets I think that this is an interesting assertion.=20=20 I find that there has been an over reliance on too-extensive layer-2 stuff, including trying to bridge wired and wireless mechanisms is a result of:=20 - scarcity of IPv4 networks - combined with lack of deployed multicast (and/or too much reliance on broadcast) between subnets. I don't think that IPv6 should continue this "tradition". I believe that L2-bridging should be the exception rather than,=20 as this suggests, the rule. For instance, I would far prefer that my laptop got a prefix (via DHCPv6 PD), and used that for the link over USB (or PAN) to my smartphone. I really don't want it to bridge. My smartphone might (or might not) also have a link on the same wifi, or maybe not. or maybe it has IPv6 via 3G...=20=20 If everything is bridged, then there are lots of loops possible, while we have STP, I think it's a fail. (I could go on with many more use cases, I suspect that we should) Or, I think that figure 3 is far more likely than figure 1, even in the face of no explicit security requirements to seperate things. =2D-=20 ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewall= s [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net archit= ect[ ] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device dri= ver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video then sign the petition.=20 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUATllacoCLcPvd0N1lAQIzMAf/YG082X6MZ5xdgfjvv/EzAtNT3NHo0e5d smbhpa4YTLH0qIl/T9lpk2GMNFo1MK3zo44LbFv5KRRDZyizPJNi6EsJPOGBKG02 Mbz8zdT2YMrSu7wmZ6TMdJaEzvE9CpQimDAQolifG1J9/WovHm4MsGrgKQAgwx4c hU+/0TuFJXJKn363uGay6sVTP5DT2CkAL4BH5atxayghvEwERtdFglvmC3XIBEUt qfWPvyaklqomrHhfGTIxouaixO98AdfHPUyXj9fqn4K423oJpeVzp4vLj/1iXdWK H1bp6/lxx4qnbHnxcCTGlxAMPxAIrNheAym52n3oe7fKT6BChqDzyg== =1G97 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Wed Aug 31 01:30:37 2011 Return-Path: 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 4910221F8B42 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 01:30:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.806 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GiJesSAQfmOK for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 01:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.knowthenet.org.uk (mx1.knowthenet.org.uk [213.248.199.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C30D21F8B43 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 01:30:34 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:Accept-Language: Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type:Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding: MIME-Version; b=DcekBdR4Thwrj1NzeSgoEg6FlolZzVJvRVZGXDey4c1k4uHM6I7OdoLv 0NHFG2phPL+GPfO+T6/LQkQOycYeP3zmRq0NDEgjxcrE+Du28iN9ksrAo pDr+E7TRDWsnkYL; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1314779526; x=1346315526; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Homenet=20Interim=20Meeting=20-=20*PRELIMINAR Y*=20announcement|Date:=20Wed,=2031=20Aug=202011=2008:32: 02=20+0000|Message-ID:=20<0D3182CD-39AF-4B68-B0F1-EB4E1F0 051C1@nominet.org.uk>|To:=20"homenet@ietf.org"=20|MIME-Version:=201.0|Content-Transfer-Encoding: =20quoted-printable|Content-ID:=20<7eb12e40-2b4c-4d36-b02 d-1c197b202a74>; bh=OlBLPWCP7b6ZR2+//oQqpmTGI6PccB6c+XnTaaYbEuo=; b=QAB0OJBx2UI+VQGWcusDW0qQi9l5Qmd8F3FYAp3NyJ5I5lAqQboTwszz evC/wnyDaIQN3t0/cjBZ50JgmAjUzCh4yvyu2VEUyQnG7c8SzA6vzNXMl rlLqnn4CnNK45QE; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,306,1312153200"; d="scan'208";a="35032861" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2011 09:32:03 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:32:03 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: "homenet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Homenet Interim Meeting - *PRELIMINARY* announcement Thread-Index: AQHMZ7h1QKJPlqa/xUeu/48BGPl0DQ== Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:32:02 +0000 Message-ID: <0D3182CD-39AF-4B68-B0F1-EB4E1F0051C1@nominet.org.uk> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7eb12e40-2b4c-4d36-b02d-1c197b202a74> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [homenet] Homenet Interim Meeting - *PRELIMINARY* announcement X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:30:37 -0000 We have received approval from our AD for an Interim Meeting before IETF 82= . Courtesy of Comcast, that meeting will be held on the 6th and 7th of Octobe= r in Philadelphia. This is the two working days immediately preceding NANOG 53 (also in Philly= ) so we expect that many from the vendor and operator communities are alrea= dy planning to be in the area. We'll likely hold an informal reception on the evening of the 5th for peopl= e arriving early. =20 We plan to get the formal announcement out by the end of the week - this em= ail is just an early 'heads up' so people can start looking at travel logis= tics if they're considering attending. Registration (for which there'll be a modest fee) will be handled by the Se= cretariat - details TBC. Ray and Mark From angelo.castellani@gmail.com Wed Aug 31 06:11:19 2011 Return-Path: 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 AE57A21F8557 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:11:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mKkbFA193fRV for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B669321F854C for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so562149wyg.31 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:12:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Bc+iayqEvHxwTou7w4mIAi1fbv8Tnen59iCaoxgV9kI=; b=TAkLTsIVgRYmQPn3pCD2uM1VfkiX6Cm6cIct/2ajzKdyV3SH9ugoTqTB9YUbxweSnd UZCJkJKkuIP0NaQWMH0dVPVyPteRnaLegswIzU7ZwOvmTnLNjLv8oH0Ux07n/doR/9C+ VHE8UWOOvJJ3ttvySkAqCf0I5PcD7Pm2pqK/M= Received: by 10.216.210.231 with SMTP id u81mr410764weo.6.1314796368277; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:12:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: angelo.castellani@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.11.211 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:12:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0D3182CD-39AF-4B68-B0F1-EB4E1F0051C1@nominet.org.uk> References: <0D3182CD-39AF-4B68-B0F1-EB4E1F0051C1@nominet.org.uk> From: "Angelo P. Castellani" Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:12:28 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Qo14pHzYGZppc-Eboz4yMVv0Tcc Message-ID: To: Ray Bellis Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Interim Meeting - *PRELIMINARY* announcement X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:11:19 -0000 Will be possible to remotely partecipate (audio, jabber, slides) to this meeting? Best, Angelo On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:32, Ray Bellis wrote: > We have received approval from our AD for an Interim Meeting before IETF 82. > > Courtesy of Comcast, that meeting will be held on the 6th and 7th of October in Philadelphia. > > This is the two working days immediately preceding NANOG 53 (also in Philly) so we expect that many from the vendor and operator communities are already planning to be in the area. > > We'll likely hold an informal reception on the evening of the 5th for people arriving early. > > We plan to get the formal announcement out by the end of the week - this email is just an early 'heads up' so people can start looking at travel logistics if they're considering attending. > > Registration (for which there'll be a modest fee) will be handled by the Secretariat - details TBC. > > Ray and Mark > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > From Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk Wed Aug 31 06:40:15 2011 Return-Path: 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 788AA21F8B76 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:40:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.201, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z2DyMo2NRssj for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.knowthenet.org.uk (mx1.knowthenet.org.uk [213.248.199.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9385A21F8B66 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:40:13 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: s=main.dk.nominet.selector; d=nominet.org.uk; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC:Subject: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References: In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:Content-Type: Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=t/OmLfZ7e/pcO3/Di+Mb23Ij3pEIZLxfsR6JjFDBk6W8Wc0VrqsPpwHA dRd5KzTtDK5OKe3pufi437REHVRwYjg/E5ZTKb5LNqynIYYG2fnU3pixX eychJNT6M1oYA8C; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nominet.org.uk; i=Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; q=dns/txt; s=main.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1314798105; x=1346334105; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20Ray=20Bellis=20 |Subject:=20Re:=20[homenet]=20Homenet=20Interim=20Meeting =20-=20*PRELIMINARY*=20announcement|Date:=20Wed,=2031=20A ug=202011=2013:41:29=20+0000|Message-ID:=20<0C8A4F88-6A03 -4010-87C7-9D9059C07D0C@nominet.org.uk>|To:=20"Angelo=20P .=20Castellani"=20|CC:=20"homenet@ ietf.org"=20|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |Content-ID:=20<571a08d2-feed-4eff-bec6-7d9d54a7bb70> |In-Reply-To:=20|References:=20<0D3182CD-39AF- 4B68-B0F1-EB4E1F0051C1@nominet.org.uk>=0D=0A=20; bh=7VKrT0njswzILW102BBaRIiUQF7Yc5fVn9zFIfZSb9k=; b=uOym9pYtfTLXnnRc9hfafAZJkGsMIAVzNteECO/jsd/DSPAr682aJDvg +2lEGBLE0kDZ0U7D2G5n7728czVOcTfzniTh21vZSEi4rk/9S8sMahWJh YAGe7/9uu7Q6Nsw; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,307,1312153200"; d="scan'208";a="35044123" Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx3.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2011 14:41:30 +0100 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%19]) with mapi; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:41:30 +0100 From: Ray Bellis To: "Angelo P. Castellani" Thread-Topic: [homenet] Homenet Interim Meeting - *PRELIMINARY* announcement Thread-Index: AQHMZ9+vi39gD6RsWkuBPlSayiD89JU25tyA Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:41:29 +0000 Message-ID: <0C8A4F88-6A03-4010-87C7-9D9059C07D0C@nominet.org.uk> References: <0D3182CD-39AF-4B68-B0F1-EB4E1F0051C1@nominet.org.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <571a08d2-feed-4eff-bec6-7d9d54a7bb70> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Interim Meeting - *PRELIMINARY* announcement X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:40:15 -0000 On 31 Aug 2011, at 14:12, Angelo P. Castellani wrote: > Will be possible to remotely partecipate (audio, jabber, slides) to > this meeting? Jabber - yes, definitely - as far as I know the WG jabber rooms are always = available. Audio is expected, but the details are still TBC. That said, we plan to run the meeting in a highly interactive workshop styl= e format rather than have everyone just watch a bunch of powerpoint slide d= ecks. The point of the meeting is to do real work, and not just get a bunc= h of status updates. Hence whilst remote participation should be _possible_ it will likely be so= mewhat suboptimal. kind regards, Ray From angelo.castellani@gmail.com Wed Aug 31 06:49:56 2011 Return-Path: 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 5FC7C21F8B89 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:49:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tzCVfuSVmfum for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99CE521F8B7A for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so597992wyg.31 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:51:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SQxn1VAUvld9uess/iwQQZ5xD1WEWgrTkN/65tWFxsQ=; b=Ov6QkgMmio4kNunWVBKuhyLz9OEqYv4mpOBGjvyClysTE7LJKIly3XOrWbRP/Tshr1 1lObXjZYy/abg0MsEBAP1sypS8nHNhClwio/7MjDoK+l+vp0r4PLsvLpthT1Y2+KhMhX DLIAh0t3iKubDbCLLiTYhhwEsLNUITz/PYeQA= Received: by 10.216.184.147 with SMTP id s19mr422721wem.36.1314798685306; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:51:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: angelo.castellani@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.11.211 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 06:51:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0C8A4F88-6A03-4010-87C7-9D9059C07D0C@nominet.org.uk> References: <0D3182CD-39AF-4B68-B0F1-EB4E1F0051C1@nominet.org.uk> <0C8A4F88-6A03-4010-87C7-9D9059C07D0C@nominet.org.uk> From: "Angelo P. Castellani" Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:51:05 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WvDl-6n4KwN5SffqD2gXMW88cAI Message-ID: To: Ray Bellis Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] Homenet Interim Meeting - *PRELIMINARY* announcement X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:49:56 -0000 Thanks, I hope that audio will be available.. I am very interested in attending this meeting, but physical partecipation is not possible for me. Best, Angelo On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 15:41, Ray Bellis wrote= : > > On 31 Aug 2011, at 14:12, Angelo P. Castellani wrote: > >> Will be possible to remotely partecipate (audio, jabber, slides) to >> this meeting? > > Jabber - yes, definitely - as far as I know the WG jabber rooms are alway= s available. =A0 Audio is expected, but the details are still TBC. > > That said, we plan to run the meeting in a highly interactive workshop st= yle format rather than have everyone just watch a bunch of powerpoint slide= decks. =A0The point of the meeting is to do real work, and not just get a = bunch of status updates. > > Hence whilst remote participation should be _possible_ it will likely be = somewhat suboptimal. > > kind regards, > > Ray > > >