Right - but we still have to agree on the admin or, as you put it,
ownership model. At least one of the proposal for autonomic networking is
a centralized approach as opposed to configuring a single authentication
password on each new device (as one with do with a WiFi network).
Acee
On 10/3/14, 7:34 PM, "Mark Baugher (mbaugher)" wrote:
>I voiced the opinion that someone has to own the homenet, as distinct
>from who might own the CPEs and routers on the homenet. In the same
>way that some ISP CPEs let the user set the Wi-Fi password, the user or
>an agent for the use needs to take homenet ownership (or in the case of
>autonomic devices, transfer ownership). This cannot be done plug
>and play, there needs to be some ceremony. It's encouraging that
>the vast majority of users in homes, small offices and small businesses
>manage to configure their Wi-Fi Protected Access. Some ceremonies
>work to improve privacy and security.
>
>The home network needs to be owned by the home user(s) or agent (could
>be the ISP or some over-the-top retail solution, etc.).
>
>Mark
>
>On Oct 3, 2014, at 6:39 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
>> One thing we need to do in homenet is agree on the network
>>administration
>> model. I believe many of us started with the assumption of plug and play
>> but are now accepting the fact that minimal configuration will be
>>required
>> to vet devices on the homenet. If we can agree on similar network admin
>> models and, as Ted pointed out, requirements on connecting devices, then
>> we be may able to use similar solutions.
>>
>> Acee
>>
>> On 10/2/14, 9:33 PM, "Sheng Jiang" wrote:
>>
>>> I also think ISP networks and enterprise networks are different from
>>>home
>>> networks. Although many requirements may looks similar, particularly
>>> considering the auto operation target, there are many preconditions are
>>> different. It could result on different solution though some components
>>> may be reusable among these networks.
>>>
>>> For ANIMA, we should surely study what homenet is working on and
>>>identify
>>> the differentia. Only after then, we can produce necessary solution
>>>with
>>> confusing the world.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Sheng
>>>
>>> From: homenet [homenet-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Toerless Eckert
>>> [eck...@cisco.com]
>>> Sent: 02 October 2014 22:41
>>> To: Leddy, John
>>> Cc: Michael Behringer (mbehring); The IESG; homenet@ietf.org; Stephen
>>> Farrell; an...@ietf.org; Ted Lemon
>>> Subject: Re: [homenet] [Anima] Ted Lemon's Block on
>>> charter-ietf-anima-00-09: (with BLOCK)
>>>
>>> Fully agreed. But does this imply that we will make most progress by
>>> blocking out a working group that is actively chartered to look at
>>> the problems in the market segments Homenet is not addressing ?
>>>
>>> If the BLOCK is meant to suggest a charter improvements for anima to
>>> better define our mutual desire to share whatever is applicable and
>>> not reinvent unnecessarily, then where is the proposed charter text
>>> change ?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Toerless
>>>
>>> P.S.: Also, if i may throw in some random tidbit of technology
>>>thoughts:
>>>
>>> I love home networks (and the WG for it), because it is the best place
>>> for IPv6 to eliminate IPv4 and start creating fresh, better IP
>>> network. I have a lot of doubt that we are anywhere close to going that
>>> route especially in larger enterprises, so the address management for
>>> IPv4 in those networks is going to be a crucial requirement where i
>>>don't
>>> think homenet could (or should) be any big help. And i am not sure if i
>>> would
>>> want to hold my breath for a lot of IPv4 adress complexity reduction in
>>> IoT either. But certainly autonomic processes cold rather help than
>>>hurt
>>> in that matter.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:50:13PM +, Leddy, John wrote:
My worry on this topic is that we are referring to ³the Home² and ³the
Enterprise².
It isn¹t that clear of a distinction. This isn¹t just a simple L2
flat
home vs. a Fortune 1000 enterprise.
The home is getting more complex and includes work from home; IOT,
home
security, hot spots, cloud services, policies, discovery etc.
Large numbers of SMB¹s look like more high end residential than they
do
large enterprises.
It would be ideal to have a solution that spans the range of size and
complexity for both residential and enterprise.
Perhaps enabling features/capabilities where required.
Also, as far as IPV6 connectivity residential is probably ahead of
enterprises in adopting V6 centric architectures and services.
Residential doesn¹t have much of a choice, it just happens.
2cents, John
On 10/2/14, 9:15 AM, "Stephen Farrell"
wrote:
>
>
> On 02/10/14 13:49, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
>> My personal goal is that what we do in
