Right - but we still have to agree on the admin or, as you put it, ownership model. At least one of the proposal for autonomic networking is a centralized approach as opposed to configuring a single authentication password on each new device (as one with do with a WiFi network). Acee
On 10/3/14, 7:34 PM, "Mark Baugher (mbaugher)" <mbaug...@cisco.com> wrote: >I voiced the opinion that someone has to own the homenet, as distinct >from who might own the CPEs and routers on the homenet. In the same >way that some ISP CPEs let the user set the Wi-Fi password, the user or >an agent for the use needs to take homenet ownership (or in the case of >autonomic devices, transfer ownership). This cannot be done plug >and play, there needs to be some ceremony. It's encouraging that >the vast majority of users in homes, small offices and small businesses >manage to configure their Wi-Fi Protected Access. Some ceremonies >work to improve privacy and security. > >The home network needs to be owned by the home user(s) or agent (could >be the ISP or some over-the-top retail solution, etc.). > >Mark > >On Oct 3, 2014, at 6:39 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> One thing we need to do in homenet is agree on the network >>administration >> model. I believe many of us started with the assumption of plug and play >> but are now accepting the fact that minimal configuration will be >>required >> to vet devices on the homenet. If we can agree on similar network admin >> models and, as Ted pointed out, requirements on connecting devices, then >> we be may able to use similar solutions. >> >> Acee >> >> On 10/2/14, 9:33 PM, "Sheng Jiang" <jiangsh...@huawei.com> wrote: >> >>> I also think ISP networks and enterprise networks are different from >>>home >>> networks. Although many requirements may looks similar, particularly >>> considering the auto operation target, there are many preconditions are >>> different. It could result on different solution though some components >>> may be reusable among these networks. >>> >>> For ANIMA, we should surely study what homenet is working on and >>>identify >>> the differentia. Only after then, we can produce necessary solution >>>with >>> confusing the world. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Sheng >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: homenet [homenet-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Toerless Eckert >>> [eck...@cisco.com] >>> Sent: 02 October 2014 22:41 >>> To: Leddy, John >>> Cc: Michael Behringer (mbehring); The IESG; homenet@ietf.org; Stephen >>> Farrell; an...@ietf.org; Ted Lemon >>> Subject: Re: [homenet] [Anima] Ted Lemon's Block on >>> charter-ietf-anima-00-09: (with BLOCK) >>> >>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
