Mark Townsley <m...@townsley.net> wrote:
> The charter as written now aims to develop building blocks which can be
> applied commonly across a wide range of networks including enterprise,
> SP, (home?), and IOT, yet the very first use-case listed in order to
> provide WG focus is restricted to carrier-only? (and, to Lorenzo's
> point, what does that actually mean with respect to IP address
> assignment?)
> If a carrier-only use-case is doing its job of focusing the WG, it will
> naturally lead to carrier-centric building blocks, contradictory to the
> stated goal of the group.
I want to change the word "carrier-only" for "professionally-managed" in your
wording, and therefore agree, and say, "Good"
Managed networks, be they in ISPs or industrial IoT settings have different
(perhaps simpler) solutions than in the home. I think the assumption that
"IoT" implies homenet networks is incorrect: there are lots of IoT which is
not in the home; and I totally agree that managed-solutions are inappropriate
in the home.
I don't think one-size fits-all here.
I suggest that ANIMA focus on "professionally-managed" networks first, with
"Homenet" being a secondary consideration, akin to IPv4 is in the homenet WG.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
pgp1C7U5I_7MV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
