Re: [homenet] Homenet Architecture & Interim Meeting
On 10/4/11 16:17 , james woodyatt wrote: > On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:00 PM, Thomas Herbst wrote: >> >> There will be wide area network providers who interwork with the >> home network but do not provide global connectivity. Two mentioned >> so far are utility networks and 3g providers. One of the outputs >> of the wg should be to define how they should be configured to >> perform their role without messing up Internet communication. > > Those utility networks have a fundamental problem that I contend is > beyond the scope and charter of HOMENET. every-time I connect my split-tunneled vpn to my home network, I am attaching a non-dfz-connected inter-network behind my home network, I don't think of this as rare or particularly exceptional problem (it's not confined to utility networks). it does have the potential for address collisions (as built currently)in ipv4 due to the extensive if not quite complete use of rfc-1918 used within the scope of that private internetwork. > Utility networks of that sort do not provide transit to the Internet > default-free zone. They must therefore obtain their routes to > residential networks bilaterally. This implies that these utility > networks could be-- and would do well to be-- numbered with ULA > prefixes, and that they should use of an exterior gateway protocol at > their border with residential networks so that each home network can > advertise, into the utility network, its list of globally assigned > prefixes that it obtains from Real Internet Service Providers. > > Yes, the scale of the routing problem faced by these utility networks > is hard. No, I don't think they're going to be able to solve it > adequately. This is-- however-- not our problem. It's theirs. They > would not have this problem if they engineered their networks > differently, i.e. to rely on real Internet service providers to > provide transit through the default-free zone between their equipment > in residential deployments and their equipment in their data centers. > This is what EVERYONE ELSE in the world does, and it works pretty > well. > >> A wg Chair from the Internet area did accuse me of "breaking the >> Internet model" because the utility networks my company builds do >> not provide global connectivity to users with our 100kb to the >> node. > > That's really not the problem, if you want my humble opinion. The > problem, I would say, is that these utility networks insist on > extending their private routing domains into our home networks where > they don't belong and they aren't welcome. > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Erik Nordmark wrote: >> [...] 6. The lookup of foo.ispA.net works over either DNS and >> returns the same IP address, but the application-layer content is >> completely different (e.g., a "subscriber" view when connecting >> over the ISP-A connection). > > This is the basic problem faced by any multi-homed host, e.g. a > personal computer with a 3G interface and a Wi-fi interface that are > simultaneously active, along with a split-tunnel VPN interface [or > three] running on one or both interfaces. > > It is a problem for host operating systems and applications > developers. I suggest HOMENET should steer well clear of it, and > just about every related problem that is too easily conflated with > it. > > > -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, core os > networking > > > > ___ 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
Re: [homenet] liasons and cross posting (was Re: Question for you)
Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) is also a standards setting organization in addition to its marketing role. Relevent work should be liaised to WFA. I can help arrange a liaision application. Regards, kiwin --- Stephen [kiwin] Palm Ph.D. W: http://www.kiwin.com Senior Technical Director T: +1-949-926-PALM Broadcom - Broadband Communications Group - Original Message - From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:cur...@occnc.com] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 11:40 AM To: Fred Baker Cc: Don Sturek ; Joe Touch ; C Chauvenet ; MANET IETF ; Mark Townsley ; Acee Lindem ; homenet@ietf.org ; rt...@ietf.org Subject: [homenet] liasons and cross posting (was Re: Question for you) In message <96082b87-d6f6-4dcf-aea6-789c99d5a...@cisco.com> Fred Baker writes: > Not sure that's the same thing. WiFi is an industry organization, not > an SDO. Yes, we could send them a letter. IEEE would be the relevant standards organization, if we had any relevant input into what is done at layer-2. IEEE usually sticks to layer-2 and IETF to layer-3 and up (layer-2.5 if that is what you want to call MPLS). We would contact WiFi if we had as idea for logo artwork for an IETF homenet/manet/roll/rtgwg blessed profile. This is not typically what IETF does. IMHO - neither is a good candidate for a liason relationship. btw - this message is cross posted to three lists: homenet, manet, rtgwg. I suggest we drop the cc to homenet only and anyone on rtgwg and manet can join homenet and continue the discussion. In Fred's defense, when he started this thread he asked that responses be sent to him only and not to the lists. [I'm not subscribed to manet, so this email may not get there.] Curtis > On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > -1 > > > > The charter already allows for interface to external groups: > > > > --- > > The working group will also liason with external > > standards bodies where it is expected that there are normative > > dependencies between the specifications of the two bodies. > > --- > > > > I.e., this can be handled via liaisons (better, IMO). > > > > Joe > > > > > > On Oct 1, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > >> > >> On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > >> > >>> To add one more point to Fred's note: I think it is important to get a > >>> commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or all > >>> of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing. > >> > >> That would be very interesting. ___ 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
Re: [homenet] Agenda?
> Is there an approximate agenda for the interim meeting? Thursday, October 6 09:00 doors open 09:30 - 12:00 - Architecture Working Session 12:00 - 13:15 - Lunch 13:15 - 15:15 - Prefix Configuration Working Session 15:15 - 15:45 - Break 15:45 - 17:30 - Routing Working Session 19:00 Dinner Friday October 7 09:00 doors open 09:30 - 12:00 - Naming/Discovery Working Session 12:00 - 13:15 - Lunch 13:15 - 15:15 - Security Working Session 15:15 - 16:00 - Wrap-up and next steps ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Agenda?
On 6 Oct 2011, at 15:04, Tim Chown wrote: > I think they're the ones on the wiki page? The ones on the wiki page are the version from _before_ they were edited mid session. I hope to update those once we've revisited that requirements page once more. > Fred's upcoming slides are on the wiki page too. Yes, they are. http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/homenet/trac/wiki/WikiStart Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Agenda?
I think they're the ones on the wiki page? Fred's upcoming slides are on the wiki page too. Tim On 6 Oct 2011, at 19:55, Samita Chakrabarti wrote: > Hi Ray/Ole: > > Can we get a pointer for the latest version of the Prefix configuration > discussion slides that was presented just now? > > Regards, > -Samita > > -Original Message- > From: homenet-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Ray Bellis > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 8:10 AM > To: Erik Nordmark > Cc: homenet@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [homenet] Agenda? > > > On 6 Oct 2011, at 11:07, Erik Nordmark wrote: > >> >> Is there an approximate agenda for the interim meeting? > > Yes, it's on the Trac Wiki: > > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/homenet/trac/wiki/WikiStart > > Ray > > ___ > 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
Re: [homenet] Agenda?
Hi Ray/Ole: Can we get a pointer for the latest version of the Prefix configuration discussion slides that was presented just now? Regards, -Samita -Original Message- From: homenet-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ray Bellis Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 8:10 AM To: Erik Nordmark Cc: homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] Agenda? On 6 Oct 2011, at 11:07, Erik Nordmark wrote: > > Is there an approximate agenda for the interim meeting? Yes, it's on the Trac Wiki: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/homenet/trac/wiki/WikiStart Ray ___ 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
Re: [homenet] liasons and cross posting (was Re: Question for you)
Hi Curtis, Sorry for my off-topic email: On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > [...] > btw - this message is cross posted to three lists: homenet, manet, > rtgwg. I suggest we drop the cc to homenet only and anyone on rtgwg > and manet can join homenet and continue the discussion. > Actually, I would prefer to limit it to one mailing list (e.g. homenet). As many, like you, are not subscribed to MANET, the MANET chairs or I have to accept each reply manually because of the mailing list filters (and currently, there are several emails per day). I have sent an email to the MANET list that the thread is continued on homenet only, so everyone interested in the topic may follow the thread there. Best regards Ulrich > > > On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > > -1 > > > > > > The charter already allows for interface to external groups: > > > > > > --- > > > The working group will also liason with external > > > standards bodies where it is expected that there are normative > > > dependencies between the specifications of the two bodies. > > > --- > > > > > > I.e., this can be handled via liaisons (better, IMO). > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > >> > > >> On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > > >> > > >>> To add one more point to Fred's note: I think it is important to get > a > > >>> commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or > all > > >>> of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing. > > >> > > >> That would be very interesting. > ___ > 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] liasons and cross posting (was Re: Question for you)
In message <96082b87-d6f6-4dcf-aea6-789c99d5a...@cisco.com> Fred Baker writes: > Not sure that's the same thing. WiFi is an industry organization, not > an SDO. Yes, we could send them a letter. IEEE would be the relevant standards organization, if we had any relevant input into what is done at layer-2. IEEE usually sticks to layer-2 and IETF to layer-3 and up (layer-2.5 if that is what you want to call MPLS). We would contact WiFi if we had as idea for logo artwork for an IETF homenet/manet/roll/rtgwg blessed profile. This is not typically what IETF does. IMHO - neither is a good candidate for a liason relationship. btw - this message is cross posted to three lists: homenet, manet, rtgwg. I suggest we drop the cc to homenet only and anyone on rtgwg and manet can join homenet and continue the discussion. In Fred's defense, when he started this thread he asked that responses be sent to him only and not to the lists. [I'm not subscribed to manet, so this email may not get there.] Curtis > On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > -1 > > > > The charter already allows for interface to external groups: > > > > --- > > The working group will also liason with external > > standards bodies where it is expected that there are normative > > dependencies between the specifications of the two bodies. > > --- > > > > I.e., this can be handled via liaisons (better, IMO). > > > > Joe > > > > > > On Oct 1, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > >> > >> On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > >> > >>> To add one more point to Fred's note: I think it is important to get a > >>> commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or all > >>> of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing. > >> > >> That would be very interesting. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Agenda?
On 6 Oct 2011, at 11:07, Erik Nordmark wrote: > > Is there an approximate agenda for the interim meeting? Yes, it's on the Trac Wiki: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/homenet/trac/wiki/WikiStart Ray ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
[homenet] Agenda?
Is there an approximate agenda for the interim meeting? Thanks, Erik ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] [manet] Question for you
Not sure that's the same thing. WiFi is an industry organization, not an SDO. Yes, we could send them a letter. On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > -1 > > The charter already allows for interface to external groups: > > --- > The working group will also liason with external > standards bodies where it is expected that there are normative > dependencies between the specifications of the two bodies. > --- > > I.e., this can be handled via liaisons (better, IMO). > > Joe > > > On Oct 1, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Fred Baker wrote: >> >> On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Don Sturek wrote: >> >>> To add one more point to Fred's note: I think it is important to get a >>> commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or all >>> of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing. >> >> That would be very interesting. >> ___ >> 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] I have begun recording the session (forgot to hit start until now)
___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
[homenet] Jari's slides...
Are here for the time being: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29188422/homenet_interim_arch_jari.pdf Tim ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
[homenet] New Remote Participation Information
Please disregard the earlier conference call instructions, and use this webex setup. We will be trying to send video, slides, etc. as well as recording the meeting itself. There is a link for more toll-free dial-in below beyond just the numbers listed. You may join with the link as well in order to see slides, etc. I may be muting people administratively during the call if there is too much noise, just "raise your hand" or speak up on jabber if you want to be unmuted. Thanks, - Mark Hello , Mark Townsley invites you to attend this online meeting. Topic: Homenet Date: Every 1 day, from Thursday, October 6, 2011 to Friday, October 7, 2011 Time: 8:00 am, Eastern Daylight Time (New York, GMT-04:00) Meeting Number: 201 102 953 Meeting Password: homenet --- To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) --- 1. Go to https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=176096667&UID=0&PW=NOWE1NDRlNzY4&RT=MiMxMQ%3D%3D 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password: homenet 4. Click "Join Now". To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=176096667&UID=0&PW=NOWE1NDRlNzY4&ORT=MiMxMQ%3D%3D ALERT:Toll-Free Dial Restrictions for (408) and (919) Area Codes The affected toll free numbers are: (866) 432-9903 for the San Jose/Milpitas area and (866) 349-3520 for the RTP area. Please dial the local access number for your area from the list below: - San Jose/Milpitas (408) area: 525-6800 - RTP (919) area: 392-3330 --- To join the teleconference only --- 1. Dial into Cisco WebEx (view all Global Access Numbers at http://cisco.com/en/US/about/doing_business/conferencing/index.html 2. Follow the prompts to enter the Meeting Number (listed above) or Access Code followed by the # sign. San Jose, CA: +1.408.525.6800 RTP: +1.919.392.3330 US/Canada: +1.866.432.9903 United Kingdom: +44.20.8824.0117 India: +91.80.4350. Germany: +49.619.6773.9002 Japan: +81.3.5763.9394 China: +86.10.8515.5666 --- For assistance --- 1. Go to https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". You can contact me at: towns...@cisco.com 33-15-804 3483 To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: https://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?ED=176096667&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=7qOwpTTyUkOlzmbQBPrVy-QwkRS-LAa5afHbXkoqNIE=&RT=MiMxMQ%3D%3D The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files requires appropriate players. To view this type of rich media files in the meeting, please check whether you have the players installed on your computer by going tohttps://ciscosales.webex.com/ciscosales/systemdiagnosis.php Sign up for a free trial of WebEx http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial http://www.webex.com CCP:+14085256800x201102953# IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
