On Oct 4, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote:
> 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). Doesn't that assume that all network devices, ISP CPEs and retail gateways, use the centralized approach? Has the multi-authority issue been solved yet for autonomic systems? Has it been addressed? I don't know. Mark > 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
