Fully agreed. But does this imply that we will make most progress by
blocking out a working group that is actively chartered to look at
the problems in the market segments Homenet is not addressing ?
If the BLOCK is meant to suggest a charter improvements for anima to
better define our mutual desire to share whatever is applicable and
not reinvent unnecessarily, then where is the proposed charter text change ?
Cheers
Toerless
P.S.: Also, if i may throw in some random tidbit of technology thoughts:
I love home networks (and the WG for it), because it is the best place
for IPv6 to eliminate IPv4 and start creating fresh, better IP
network. I have a lot of doubt that we are anywhere close to going that
route especially in larger enterprises, so the address management for
IPv4 in those networks is going to be a crucial requirement where i don't
think homenet could (or should) be any big help. And i am not sure if i would
want to hold my breath for a lot of IPv4 adress complexity reduction in
IoT either. But certainly autonomic processes cold rather help than hurt
in that matter.
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:50:13PM +0000, Leddy, John wrote:
> My worry on this topic is that we are referring to ³the Home² and ³the
> Enterprise².
> It isn¹t that clear of a distinction. This isn¹t just a simple L2 flat
> home vs. a Fortune 1000 enterprise.
>
> The home is getting more complex and includes work from home; IOT, home
> security, hot spots, cloud services, policies, discovery etc.
> Large numbers of SMB¹s look like more high end residential than they do
> large enterprises.
>
> It would be ideal to have a solution that spans the range of size and
> complexity for both residential and enterprise.
> Perhaps enabling features/capabilities where required.
>
> Also, as far as IPV6 connectivity residential is probably ahead of
> enterprises in adopting V6 centric architectures and services.
> Residential doesn¹t have much of a choice, it just happens.
>
> 2cents, John
>
> On 10/2/14, 9:15 AM, "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On 02/10/14 13:49, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
> >> My personal goal is that what we do in ANIMA is fully compatible with
> >> and ideally used in homenet. It would feel wrong to me to have an
> >> infrastructure that doesn't work in a homenet.
> >>
> >> The security bootstrap is a good example of what we can achieve, with
> >> reasonable effort.
> >
> >FWIW, it is not clear to me that the reasonable requirements
> >for provisioning device security information (or bootstrapping
> >if we wanted to call it that) are the same.
> >
> >In enterprise environments we see fewer larger vendors of devices.
> >In the home where we additionally have a large range of vendors
> >many of whom are tiny and leverage a lot of OSS and who could
> >perhaps not take part in the kind of provisioning infrastructure
> >that is quite reasonable for enterprises and their vendors.
> >
> >I do think both want to end up in the same state, where devices
> >are authorised for connection to the network and where there is
> >some keying material usable for security, but I'd be surprised
> >if one approach to getting there worked the same way for both
> >homes and enterprises.
> >
> >S.
> >
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
