Timothy Winters <mailto:twint...@iol.unh.edu>
3 June 2014 23:02
On Jun 3, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter<brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 04/06/2014 01:34, Michael Richardson wrote:
Steven Barth<cy...@openwrt.org> wrote:
Well maybe it was worded a bit ambiguously. The main idea behind this was
that an HNCP router should provide "basic connectivity" in the form of
DHCPv4 and DHCPv6-PD to non-HNCP-routers. 7084 routers should not do
anything fancy
and just work as legacy devices believing the homenet is their ISP.
If the person connects things in the wrong order, should we be documenting
the heuristics that would permit the HNCP router to detect this situation?
Let's get real. Users *will* mix and match RFC7084, RFC6204 and neither-of-
the-above IPv6 routers with HNCP-capable routers. If we can't deal with
routers that are blind to HNCP in a reasonable way, those users will
be unhappy. Indeed, the first stage is for HNCP routers to discover
the existence of HNCP-blind routers.
Brian
The following draft can from the homenet design team
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-winters-homenet-sper-interaction-01) tries to
cover the border scenarios for 6204, 7084 and other routers (SPERs) when
interacting with the Homenet. It doesn't cover the case for routers inside a
homenet but as Steven pointed out that can be two separate border router.
~Tim
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
I don't read anything in 7084 about providing PD on the LAN interfaces.
In fact it states that it must act as "a requesting router" not a
"delegating router"
So I don't see how the scenario of a 7084 compliant router acting as a
border router or ISP router is going to pan out: a 7084 router only
assigns one /64 per LAN interface (requirement L-2)
Brian E Carpenter <mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
3 June 2014 22:02
Let's get real. Users *will* mix and match RFC7084, RFC6204 and
neither-of-
the-above IPv6 routers with HNCP-capable routers. If we can't deal with
routers that are blind to HNCP in a reasonable way, those users will
be unhappy. Indeed, the first stage is for HNCP routers to discover
the existence of HNCP-blind routers.
Brian
That's a tautology. 7084 and 6204 were explicitly designed with an
architecture of a single router and flat user LANs. If these existing
standards supported cascaded routers in any way, we probably wouldn't
need Homenet.
They also cannot be assumed to deal with anything other than a default
route (requirement W-3), SADR, or multiple upstream neighbours AFAICS
(all requirements for PD in WPD-1 - WPD-5 talk about a (single) prefix
(L-13) and single PD request (W-4), or that they have a facility to
disable BCP 38 filtering (S-2).
So IHMO they're going to be limited at most to leaf nodes at the edge of
the Homenet. And even then they're probably going to break naming.
Anything else will be a guess, as your HNCP discovery traffic will be
blocked and you can't detect if this is a single 7084 router blocking
HNCP, or two 7084 routers cascaded in series, or an entire homenet
sandwiched between them.
Michael Richardson <mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>
3 June 2014 15:34
Steven Barth <cy...@openwrt.org> wrote:
> Well maybe it was worded a bit ambiguously. The main idea behind
this was
> that an HNCP router should provide "basic connectivity" in the form of
> DHCPv4 and DHCPv6-PD to non-HNCP-routers. 7084 routers should not do
> anything fancy
> and just work as legacy devices believing the homenet is their ISP.
If the person connects things in the wrong order, should we be documenting
the heuristics that would permit the HNCP router to detect this situation?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Steven Barth <mailto:cy...@openwrt.org>
3 June 2014 09:15
Well maybe it was worded a bit ambiguously. The main idea behind this
was that an HNCP router should provide "basic connectivity" in the
form of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6-PD to non-HNCP-routers. 7084 routers should
not do anything fancy and just work as legacy devices believing the
homenet is their ISP.
This should not mean you should be able to "tunnel" through 7084
routers or so.
Does that sound sane? And maybe what would be a better wording for
this idea?
Ray Hunter <mailto:v6...@globis.net>
3 June 2014 09:05
Steven Barth wrote:
Hello everyone,
I prepared the first few changes for the upcoming HNCP draft version
01. Most of this is derived from features we already added to our
reference implementation.
1. Backwards-compatibility with RFC 7084 routers.
Diff:
https://github.com/fingon/ietf-drafts/commit/c193f27f036175ac5a006fe3df1a1ea8f908975d
Looks like a can of worms to me.
How do you intend to do this?
Are there Homenet topology limitations?
How will the user know not to plug the LAN interface of a 7084 router
into a WAN interface?
7084 (6204bis) was intended to be a dead end once Homenet completed
AFAICS.
2. HNCP-routers should make interface categories (auto, internal,
external) configurable and MAY offer additional categories (guest,
ad-hoc).
Diff:
https://github.com/fingon/ietf-drafts/commit/47fdf57a1759fad6e8c6c29d741e95039aca671e
Agreed. Sensible.
3. Some house-keeping (updating references, fixing idnits warnings)
Diff:
https://github.com/fingon/ietf-drafts/commit/a2e2aa1f43e91e808af56f31e5ad514568fc8a6a
Agreed.
Feedback is welcome.
Regards,
Steven
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Regards,
RayH
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
