Dear colleagues:
It seems that the definition of the coined term "professionally managed"
is somewhat ambiguous.
From an architectural point of view, I would like to see
a) Design of management functionality with lots of flexibility as to
which device(s) assume which role(s), with consideration of the entire
device and network lifecycle.
b) No assignment as to which devices assume which role(s) cast in stone
(so, no hardcoding of assumptions or attempts to ossify business
interests into an architectural design!).
This allows both (what I believe some people mean with the term)
"professionally managed" by the likes of ISPs, but also re-assignment of
responsibilities (without, God forbid, "SIM lock-in behavior" of the
usual suspects).
If one accepts this, the aspect as to whether something is
"professionally managed" or not becomes something that is a
configuration parameter and one can focus on enabling the flexibility to
let a million business model flowers bloom...
Please also see the excerpt of minutes Anima (UCAN) BOF Minutes (see
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/minutes/minutes-90-ucan):
o Rene Struik - Little verbiage around the use side of the usage scenarios.
Need to
understand the users dependency on the vendor over the long-run. From user
perspective,
one should aim for no forced lock-in by vendor by technical means, i.e., one
needs
"vendor dependency neutrality", similar to "network neutrality".
Best regards, Rene
On 10/7/2014 2:12 PM, Mark Baugher (mbaugher) wrote:
On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote:
Mark Townsley <m...@townsley.net> wrote:
I suggest that ANIMA focus on "professionally-managed" networks first,
with "Homenet" being a secondary consideration, akin to IPv4 is in the
homenet WG.
I like that suggestion, with a caveat. The caveat being that I think
there is room for a "professionally managed" home network as well -
something homenet to date has touched on, but for the most part
avoided.
Sure; we have avoided it because I think most see the only professional
nearby being the ISP, and few of *us* professionals want them mucking around
in our home. That's the personal experience of IETF contributors as
individuals.
The major retail brands also offer remote network support using tools that
come with their routers. It should always be possible to plug a router in
front of an ISP device for "over-the-top" support from whatever provider
one trusts to do that. And I think most people would benefit from having
professional support on their home network though few seem to be willing
to pay for it. The more competent ISPs often do it for free. But there's
the problem of having routers owned by other entities on the network:
An ISP device and a retail device is probably more common than two ISPs.
However, we also see in our architecture that we expect two be able to get
service from two ISPs, so in the end, our pessimism about the ability of the
ISP professional to manage our home network is legitimate. There can't be
only one --- cooperation is required.
If the cooperation entails telling your competitors who your customers happen
to be, then it's probably a requirement that won't be satisfied, at least
not for a long time.
There are other professional organizations that would like to help manage our
homes: Apple, Google and Microsoft come to mind. Yet, even there, we expect
cooperation. That's why the secure bootstrap problem is more difficult in
the home than it is, in for instance, an oil refinery.
The only model that seems realistic to me is to have the home network owner
take ownership of the home network, possibly with the help of a third
party that is contracted to provide professional support.
Mark
It should be up to the user to decide to have their home network
professionally managed of course, but as long as that choice is made, a
"professionally managed network" WG might be able to provide tooling
equally as well for the home as for an enterprise (or SOHO, etc, to
Leddy's point). Here is where including what homenet has already done
is important for a new WG, if nothing else but to coexist properly
between the two solutions. For example, Homenet has had to spend quite
a bit of cycles dealing with what we think the home network will look
like by the time HNCP arrives (Hierarchical DHCPv6-PD, HIPNET,
etc.). Anima should be able to make the same consideration for how to
operate with HNCP in the network as well - e.g., new "professionally
managed" solution when available, "non-managed" via HNCP otherwise.
In terms of scope of work and where it is done, I'm not sure this means
the "professionally managed home" work should done in anima or homenet
WGs, but I do know we shouldn't do it with blinders on.
What do you mean "with blinders on" here?
Usually that means that the horse has blinders to avoid distraction by things
that aren't in front of them. So I think that you mean that professional
managed ideas should be visible to Homenet and ANIMA, but do you really mean:
ANIMA should pay attention to non-managed networks
HOMENET should pay attention to managed networks
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
_______________________________________________
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
--
email: rstruik....@gmail.com | Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658 | US: +1 (415) 690-7363
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
