On 10/6/19 2:41 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 6, 2019, at 10:58 AM, Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org
<mailto:otr...@employees.org>> wrote:
Are you saying there might be gaps in HNCP? Or things we could do to
make it more deployable?
If it's just a matter of running code missing, I'm not sure defining
anything else new in the IETF would help that problem.
There are definitely missing features from the protocol that I’d like
to add. But I think the fact that the protocol isn’t deployed on a
_single_ commercially available router, and is not really usable on
OpenWRT by a non-expert, is an indication that there is substantial
remaining work to do. Operations work is not out of scope for IETF;
maybe I should have asked this on v6ops. We have historically said
“not our problem,” but I don’t agree that that’s the right answer.
If HNCP had really convincingly solved the problem, we would not be
seeing what we are seeing.
If the protocol is not truly plug and play in reality... wasn't that the
entire premise? That doesn't sound like an ops problem. I understand
that openwrt is a wonk box, but still if there isn't default
configuration that would make it truly plug and play for most
situations, that sounds really problematic.
Can you confirm or not that openwrt could be set up by default in a way
that met the charter's requirements for operations (ie, like what you
might expect in a commercial home router)?
Mike
I know why I haven't implemented HNCP on software I work on... and I
also know that there aren't any very realistic alternatives either.
Can you say why that is?
RA guard isn't applicable in a RFC7084 context. RFC7078 talks about
routing and routers. I.e. what happens at the network layer.
You mean at the “internet layer,” I assume?
If you are talking about what happens at the often integrated bridge
CE devices have, then sure, they could implement RA Guard.
But having your additional router sending RAs across the homenet
might not be a particularly good idea anyway.
Why not? What would be a better idea? I don’t mean to say that
using RAs in this way is ideal, but what’s the alternative that
doesn’t involve the vast complexity of per-host routing?
Sounds like you need to set it up as a NAT.
I really hope you are just making a funny joke here. But it’s not
very funny. What I want is something that’s operationally simple,
not something with lots of moving parts that have to be kept track of.
NATs in particular suck for any UDP-based protocol.
I wasn't thinking of doing it exactly like the 6lowpan does it.
Regardless I don't see why scaling should be problematic, are you
planning to have millions of rapidly moving hosts on your shared /64
network?
If you have N devices on a single link on the other side of the
router, then when using either RA or a routing protocol, the amount of
information you need to propagate to get things working is very small:
just a prefix and a router. If you can’t do that, then the amount of
information you need to propagate is at a minimum N units, and
possibly K*N, for some not insignificant factor K.
To be clear, the reason I’m concerned about this is that I’ve looked
at implementing it on OpenWRT, and it’s at least roughly doubling the
complexity of the work required, even if you can depend on using IPv6.
If you have to use IPv4 on one side, then it’s even more complexity.
And it’s utterly stupid complexity—it adds no value over subnetting.
Why add that to the network?
This is why I’m asking people if they have knowledge of what is
actually deployed. I think this is the right place to ask, but if
you disagree, I’m open to suggestions.
_______________________________________________
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
