In message <4e93358f.7050...@cisco.com> Erik Nordmark writes: > On 10/8/11 6:13 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > > I like this, with the possible exception of using ULAs and your desire > > to deprecate prefixes as soon as connectivity goes down. (Speaking as > > someone whose prefixes got invalidated two months ago but who hasn't > > been home long enough to fix the problem, but my devices still happily > > communicate with each other using the old prefixes :-) I also agree with > > Erik that loop and arbitrary topologies is not really required. But the > > people in the interim at least seemed to say yesterday that we want to > > go there. > > I think there are different scopes being discussed. > > The one I put forth is how to enable existing IPv4 NATting consumer home > routers (which all have a designated uplink port, and support multiple > home routers by nested NATting) have a way to support IPv6 without > requiring any IPv6 NATs. That doesn't seem to be a difficult problem > (which perhaps makes it uninteresting for some of us), but to me it > seems like an important short-term problem to solve. > > The larger scope is around arbitrary topologies, no designated uplink > port, and perhaps also multihoming. Plenty of problems to solve around > autoconfiguring routing protocols, stable prefix assignment to links, > multihoming, etc.
Erik, I really don't know how many support calls are just the consumer plugging the computer into the wrong Ethernet port on the NAT box and the uplink on the other port and then not being able to figure out what is wrong. All the cables fit in the connector. It should work! If all the ports are the same, no designated uplink, that is better. If you get an IP address via DHCP on one and none of the others, it may be the uplink and try doing NAT. What may be needed is a IPv4 equivalent to the IPv6 IA_PD and a provider DSL or docsis modem/router that knows how to respond to it. The other routers ask for a IA_PD and the provider modem/router responds with part of 10/8 on each interface (and does NAT). The same loop tolerance can then be built into the IPv4 homenet using 16M addresses provided by NAT as can be provided for the IPv6 subnet using a globally routable /64 (with its 4B^2 addresses). The idea is that the consumer can plug things in in arbitrarily stupid way and it will all still work well enough to not require a support call. It might work better if set up right, but good enough if set up wrong. Perhaps GbE can be preferred over 100baseT over 10baseT and somewhere between 100baseT over 10baseT or after 10baseT fits WiFi. Beyond that metrics for multiple WiFi hops can be channel aware. > Some things are common across the two; security (determining the > boundary of the home), DNS, and service discovery. > > Erik The security boundary of WiFi for non-open WiFi is separate issue. That can't easily be zero config. Perhaps two devices can "bond" (in the "fall in love" analogy sense) over an Ethernet or USB connection as one way around the configuring WPA issue. Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
