> On 2 Dec 2016, at 15.50, Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@irif.fr> wrote: > I've just submitted > > draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-01 > > It should hit the IETF repository soon, in the meantime, my working copy is on > > > https://github.com/jech/babel-drafts/tree/master/draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile > > The major change is the addition of Section 3, which describes how HNCP > speaks to Babel. Other than that, I've removed the editorial notes. > > I still have my doubts about REQ5, but I believe that the current > formulation reflects the consensus attained at IETF-95:
I do not like REQ5. As a SHOULD, perhaps, but MUST seems excessive. Guest networks without any HNCP / routing traffic are the way to go anyway in my opinion. What happens behind closed doors (= non-guest) is up to the home, I think. With dynamic categories of interfaces, as long as we do not mandate securing RA/DHCP*, securing routing and HNCP will not help much in the bug picture. (=Anyone can pretend to be uplink and get traffic routed through them anyway). With static categories, if you send HNCP/routing traffic on guest interfaces, you are doing something wrong. Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
