Hello Ted : The reason why we opted for ND proxy is not the lack of a homenet solution. It is rather the fact that the wireless node keeps moving from a mesh to the next and if they are different subnets then it needs to renumber, which we did not know how to do efficiently – think dhcp or autoconf, 1x, plus reregistration to the application, a number of round trips on constrained links, some of which real deep. Bottom line is that we wanted both the benefits of routing to control/avoid broadcast and those of a single subnet to control/avoid renumbering and we built accordingly.
Cheers, Pascal From: ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ted Lemon Sent: lundi 7 octobre 2019 16:37 To: RayH <v6...@globis.net> Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>; Markus Stenberg <homenet@ietf.org>; 6MAN <6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices... On Oct 7, 2019, at 9:15 AM, RayH <v6...@globis.net<mailto:v6...@globis.net>> wrote: My preferred path would be to look at why Homenet hasn't been rolled out. If it's because manufacturers aren't updating boxes at all, or even ipv6 at all as per my local internet non-service provider, another standard ain't going to solve that. So is there concensus on what's broken? And what needs fixing? I think it’s a lot simpler than that: they don’t have to do it, so they don’t. There’s no upside for them in adding complexity to the network, and that’s what this looks like. In order for homenet to see widespread adoption, there has to be a problem it solves that lots of home users have. TBH, one of the reasons that I am not in favor of ND proxy is precisely that it kicks this can even father down the road. IoT network transit and similar applications are a clear use case for Homenet; building a solution that’s going in entirely the wrong evolutionary direction seems like an unfortunate plan.
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
