On 10/4/11 16:17 , james woodyatt wrote: > On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:00 PM, Thomas Herbst wrote: >> >> There will be wide area network providers who interwork with the >> home network but do not provide global connectivity. Two mentioned >> so far are utility networks and 3g providers. One of the outputs >> of the wg should be to define how they should be configured to >> perform their role without messing up Internet communication. > > Those utility networks have a fundamental problem that I contend is > beyond the scope and charter of HOMENET.
every-time I connect my split-tunneled vpn to my home network, I am attaching a non-dfz-connected inter-network behind my home network, I don't think of this as rare or particularly exceptional problem (it's not confined to utility networks). it does have the potential for address collisions (as built currently)in ipv4 due to the extensive if not quite complete use of rfc-1918 used within the scope of that private internetwork. > Utility networks of that sort do not provide transit to the Internet > default-free zone. They must therefore obtain their routes to > residential networks bilaterally. This implies that these utility > networks could be-- and would do well to be-- numbered with ULA > prefixes, and that they should use of an exterior gateway protocol at > their border with residential networks so that each home network can > advertise, into the utility network, its list of globally assigned > prefixes that it obtains from Real Internet Service Providers. > > Yes, the scale of the routing problem faced by these utility networks > is hard. No, I don't think they're going to be able to solve it > adequately. This is-- however-- not our problem. It's theirs. They > would not have this problem if they engineered their networks > differently, i.e. to rely on real Internet service providers to > provide transit through the default-free zone between their equipment > in residential deployments and their equipment in their data centers. > This is what EVERYONE ELSE in the world does, and it works pretty > well. > >> A wg Chair from the Internet area did accuse me of "breaking the >> Internet model" because the utility networks my company builds do >> not provide global connectivity to users with our 100kb to the >> node. > > That's really not the problem, if you want my humble opinion. The > problem, I would say, is that these utility networks insist on > extending their private routing domains into our home networks where > they don't belong and they aren't welcome. > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Erik Nordmark wrote: >> [...] 6. The lookup of foo.ispA.net works over either DNS and >> returns the same IP address, but the application-layer content is >> completely different (e.g., a "subscriber" view when connecting >> over the ISP-A connection). > > This is the basic problem faced by any multi-homed host, e.g. a > personal computer with a 3G interface and a Wi-fi interface that are > simultaneously active, along with a split-tunnel VPN interface [or > three] running on one or both interfaces. > > It is a problem for host operating systems and applications > developers. I suggest HOMENET should steer well clear of it, and > just about every related problem that is too easily conflated with > it. > > > -- james woodyatt <j...@apple.com> member of technical staff, core os > networking > > > > _______________________________________________ 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
