"Ciavaglia, Laurent (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" wrote:
> Does the need to explicitly distinguish ANIMA work from HOMENET work
> still exist
yes. It's not just because we want to stay out of HOMENET's hair.
It's because we have a different set of assumptions. In ANIMA we may
reasonably say, "THERE WILL BE AN X" (which will properly run, etc.).
We assume a budget for equipment and for people, and we assume that there are
more than two people involved. We also assume that a goal we have is to
reduce the amount of effort (and travel!) required by the most senior of the
people.
While in HOMENET, you can not postulate an X unless you can determine
who will provide it, how many will be provided, and which one will be elected
as the master-X. HOMENET also can generally assume that the network is
relatively small: if not in number of nodes, then at least in extent.
For instance,. a rural school with 200 chromebooks and no support from a
centralized IT person falls into HOMENET.
While a boutique global ISP might have only 100 routers, two in each of 50
cities, and clearly falls into ANIMA, despite having fewer nodes than the
rural school.
At the same time, a (inter)network of rural school(s), being managed
centrally by an IT person is again, ANIMA.
> FWIW, my understanding of "professionally managed" is "managed _BY_ a
> professional". Here the person or entity being the "professional" is
> providing a service (paid or free) to manage a given network as part of
> her job (or contract). In the mission of her job (or contract) the
> professional is "external" to the user of the network being managed
> (i.e. act as a first/third party).
We argued about the term, and concluded that this term was sufficiently
inclusive that it covered Tier-1 ISPs, Residential ISPs, as well as big
and medium sized enterprises. It's unlikely that a small enterprise would
on it's own count, unless they had outsourced their management. We just
don't care how the profession is involved.
> * note: a homenet can well be very professionally managed in the sense
> that it follows BCP but it does not mean it is managed by someone for
> which it is the job to do this (e.g. John Doe, who is a skilled
> engineer, manage its homenet for himself, or manage homenets for his
> friends/relatives...) ** note: a homenet can well be completely
> unmanaged, i.e. relying exclusively on full plug-and-play mechanisms.
So, again, in your home or mine, our home networks are likely more
professionally managed than many enterprise networks. Am I more likely to
use ANIMA than HOMENET protocols in *MY* home? Maybe.
That's why we didn't write "home" or "enterprise" networks.
Having said this, there is interest in trying to find a way to make BRSKI
work in a HOMENET. The problem is that X=JRC, and how will it be provided?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
