On 02/10/2014 13:26, Mark Townsley wrote: > On Oct 1, 2014, at 9:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> 1) One reason for not stating homenet as part of the scope is >> that we do not want to interfere with the current progress in >> homenet. Personally I think there is a lot to learn from >> homenet, but as I just said to Pierre, we are too late to affect >> homenet's choices. I will be delighted if the results can be >> applied to homenets in future, of course. > >> If we were having this discussion 5 years ago, I would agree. >> But you homenet guys are ahead of us. > > > Yes and no. > > Yes, homenet is ahead of anima in terms of, say, a distributed IPv6 prefix > configuration algorithm. This is one of the first things the group began > tackling, so there's quite a bit of water under the bridge here. However, > while I have seen a lot of recent effort in security, homenet has a long way > to go here. This happens to be something I get the impression anima has been > working on for quite a while. > > You say that you wish to learn from what homenet has done, yet the current > proposed anima charter says: > > ...autonomic service agents will demonstrate the usage of the above > mentioned autonomic infrastructure components with two use cases: > > o A solution for distributed IPv6 prefix management within a network. > Although prefix delegation is currently supported, it relies on human > action to subdivide and assign prefixes according to local requirements, > and this process could become autonomic. > > This use case is precisely what draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment does > (which has roots all the way back to draft-arkko-homenet-prefix-assignment-00 > in October 2011). So to homenet, this is a solved problem - with an algorithm > that has been applied not just to HNCP, but to OSPF and ISIS.
Well, we have a bug in our short description, because the intention is to support prefix assignment in a carrier scenario, which is different in many ways. Good catch. > I do think that there is room for a non-distributed algorithm that is tied > more to centralized mechanisms, particularly as you move closer to a more > tightly managed system. But for a distributed approach, as you observed > Brian, homenet is rather far along. > This is just the most obvious example that jumps out at me. There may be > something similar to say about HNCP itself, the use of src+dst routing, etc. > In any case, It's not hard to extrapolate from here that in a year's time or > so, if we continue on the current trajectory, homenet will have come up with > its own non-anima secure bootstrapping, and anima will have come up with its > own non-homenet distributed IPv6 prefix configuration. Which we should try to coordinate, since I see no reason in theory why there can't be common underlying mechanisms between enterprise, carrier and SOHO. But I don't want to hear in 2 years time that homenet is stuck because anima hasn't met its milestones. Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet