Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

[Ted Lemon]

On Aug 10, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen  wrote:
> Now, assuming that I am wrong and this is actually a serious issue that
> we need to solve (of which I am not opposed to being convinced), I think
> it would be feasible to come up with a solution where we could at least
> allow less capable routers that do not implement the full MPvD support.
> I can think of at least two ways off the top of my head:
> 
> 1. Allow the router in question to offload queries to a more capable
>   router elsewhere in the homenet.
> 
> 2. Allow the router in question to just query all upstreams and combine
>   the results (and so offload the problem to the client).

Great.   Can you explain, step by step, how to do either of these things?

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Ted Lemon  writes:

> On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen  wrote:
>> with the possible exception of the
>> requirement for supporting multiple provisioning domains
>
> How would you solve the problem of dual-homing without the multiple
> provisioning domain support described in the document?

We're talking about the "oh no, my netflix streams is coming from the
wrong ISP" kind of problem here, right? I.e., same DNS request gives
different answer depending on which ISP I send it to?

For one thing, I'm not convinced this is that big of a problem. I happen
to live in a country that likes to apply censorship by messing with DNS;
so I generally don't use my ISP's name servers, and have never had any
issues arising from this. So in this case a solution could just be to
ignore the issue... :)

Now, assuming that I am wrong and this is actually a serious issue that
we need to solve (of which I am not opposed to being convinced), I think
it would be feasible to come up with a solution where we could at least
allow less capable routers that do not implement the full MPvD support.
I can think of at least two ways off the top of my head:

1. Allow the router in question to offload queries to a more capable
   router elsewhere in the homenet.

2. Allow the router in question to just query all upstreams and combine
   the results (and so offload the problem to the client).


-Toke

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

[Markus Stenberg]

On 10 Aug 2017, at 23.33, STARK, BARBARA H  wrote:
> 
> With one day left in CFA for draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming, here is my 
> summary of what I think I've read.
> 
> Exactly 3 people have expressed support for adoption (Daniel [author], 
> Michael R, James). Hmm. That's not a lot.
> 
> Juliusz expressed opposition to adoption, but Ray and Michael said the 
> reasoning for objection was flawed (that Juliusz was setting the bar too high 
> and the procedural objections were not valid in the context of IETF 
> procedures). Ray said the purpose of a CFA is "to get agreement that a 
> document is an appropriate direction for the WG to explore, even if it might 
> require substantial work".
> Ted [author] said he thought it might be reasonable to put the CFA on hold 
> until Daniel did another update.
> Tim C said he thought it was early for adoption (for this and related dnssd 
> drafts).
> 
> I hope I got this summary right. Did I miss anything important?
> Does anyone else have an opinion? Does anyone who has expressed an opinion 
> want to express a new and different opinion?

I find it desirable that a work in this direction goes on. However, there’s 
details due to which I am not very keen about this particular document (or the 
related dns-sd documents for that matter, but this is not the forum for those). 
In order I encountered them during a browse through the document:

- requiring every link on every router to have local DNS forwarder/server seems 
very broken to me. _one_ in-home DNS server is probably enough.
 ( external dns update could be prevented also by e.g. knowing prefix(es) 
allocated to homenet, by using ULA, or by judicious firewalling; I prefer ULA 
but YMMV )

- 3.3
 - it implies that homenet exposes DNS outside home (by default?) and uses 
instead custom dns server logic to handle .home.arpa from ‘outside’; why not 
just firewall it and be done with it (or listen only on e.g. ULA prefix)
 - why filter out global IPs?

- 3.5 (PVD madness)
 - WHY? can’t we get just rid of split horizon DNS madness and use _a_ DNS 
instead of N DNS servers?
 - round-robin = bad (think why happy eyeballs came up for example of why)

I’d much rather see some detail on how selected subset of services can be 
exposed outside home (including also how related firewalling works), than the 
PVD stuff, and some of the things seem just misguided from implementation point 
of view; a set of DNS forwarders/servers seems like overkill if one is 
implementing N+1 device (which assumes there is ’smarter’ router already in the 
home, look at the current mesh wireless solutions for example).

Anyway, this is my yearly post quota used for the WG, I’ll be back in 2018 :) 
Looking forward to using this someday, but given it requires host changes 
(notably parts of 3.3 and 3.5), I am not holding my breath on that yet.

Cheers,

-Markus

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

[Ted Lemon]

On Aug 10, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen  wrote:
> with the possible exception of the
> requirement for supporting multiple provisioning domains

How would you solve the problem of dual-homing without the multiple 
provisioning domain support described in the document?

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Andrew Sullivan  writes:

> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 08:33:11PM +, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>> Does anyone else have an opinion? Does anyone who has expressed an opinion 
>> want to express a new and different opinion?
>> Barbara
>
> I haven't weighed in because I can't make up my mind.
>
> On the one hand, I think this is a reasonable and limited set of
> things to do to get started with, and so I'd normally say we should
> adopt it and go ahead.
>
> On the other hand, as I suggested in Prague, it's quite a limited set
> of aspirations, and quite a bit short of what we had originally
> suggested we were trying to do. It even seems shy of various claims in
> the architecture document, which I see as a sort of requirements
> document.

I am in a bit of the same boat. I think most of the things in the
document are reasonable things to do (with the possible exception of the
requirement for supporting multiple provisioning domains), but I would
also like to solve some of the other problems that are deemed out of
scope in the current version of the document. At a minimum, I would like
to solve the "services should be visible from the outside" problem.

I guess I'm fine with adopting the document, as long as it's still
possible to make these kinds of adjustments in scope further along the
way... :)

-Toke

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

[Ted Lemon]

Barbara, I seem to recall that you were enthusiastic about the work when it
was discussed in the meeting.   You're allowed to be one of the people
who's in favor of it, despite being chair.   Indeed, as chair, you can just
adopt it by fiat if you want.   I actually agree with Ray and Michael that
Juliusz reasoning was flawed, and am definitely in favor of adopting it and
working on it.   I also agree with Andrew that it shouldn't be the final
word on naming in the homenet.

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Andrew Sullivan 
wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 08:33:11PM +, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> > Does anyone else have an opinion? Does anyone who has expressed an
> opinion want to express a new and different opinion?
> > Barbara
>
> I haven't weighed in because I can't make up my mind.
>
> On the one hand, I think this is a reasonable and limited set of
> things to do to get started with, and so I'd normally say we should
> adopt it and go ahead.
>
> On the other hand, as I suggested in Prague, it's quite a limited set
> of aspirations, and quite a bit short of what we had originally
> suggested we were trying to do.  It even seems shy of various claims
> in the architecture document, which I see as a sort of requirements
> document.
>
> So, I'm not opposed to working on it.  But I wish it were more
> ambitious.  But I wish I were more ambitious, too :-)
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> a...@anvilwalrusden.com
>
> ___
> 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] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 08:33:11PM +, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> Does anyone else have an opinion? Does anyone who has expressed an opinion 
> want to express a new and different opinion?
> Barbara

I haven't weighed in because I can't make up my mind.

On the one hand, I think this is a reasonable and limited set of
things to do to get started with, and so I'd normally say we should
adopt it and go ahead.

On the other hand, as I suggested in Prague, it's quite a limited set
of aspirations, and quite a bit short of what we had originally
suggested we were trying to do.  It even seems shy of various claims
in the architecture document, which I see as a sort of requirements
document.

So, I'm not opposed to working on it.  But I wish it were more
ambitious.  But I wish I were more ambitious, too :-)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

[homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

[STARK, BARBARA H]

With one day left in CFA for draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming, here is my 
summary of what I think I've read.

Exactly 3 people have expressed support for adoption (Daniel [author], Michael 
R, James). Hmm. That's not a lot.

Juliusz expressed opposition to adoption, but Ray and Michael said the 
reasoning for objection was flawed (that Juliusz was setting the bar too high 
and the procedural objections were not valid in the context of IETF 
procedures). Ray said the purpose of a CFA is "to get agreement that a document 
is an appropriate direction for the WG to explore, even if it might require 
substantial work".
Ted [author] said he thought it might be reasonable to put the CFA on hold 
until Daniel did another update.
Tim C said he thought it was early for adoption (for this and related dnssd 
drafts).

I hope I got this summary right. Did I miss anything important?
Does anyone else have an opinion? Does anyone who has expressed an opinion want 
to express a new and different opinion?
Barbara




___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-dot-12.txt

[Ted Lemon]

This revision fixes the problem that Mark Andrews pointed out yesterday with 
respect to queries for DS records for 'home.arpa.'

Before any further action occurs, we should probably wait for Mark, who I 
assume is enjoying a well deserved night's sleep right now, to see if he's 
happy with the new version.   Sorry for the churn, but the problem Mark found 
was a very serious problem that would have prevented the whole thing from 
working!

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

[homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-dot-12.txt

[internet-drafts]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Home Networking WG of the IETF.

Title   : Special Use Domain 'home.arpa.'
Authors : Pierre Pfister
  Ted Lemon
Filename: draft-ietf-homenet-dot-12.txt
Pages   : 9
Date: 2017-08-10

Abstract:
   This document specifies the behavior that is expected from the Domain
   Name System with regard to DNS queries for names ending with
   '.home.arpa.', and designates this domain as a special-use domain
   name. 'home.arpa.' is designated for non-unique use in residential
   home networks.  Home Networking Control Protocol (HNCP) is updated to
   use the 'home.arpa.' domain instead of '.home'.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-dot/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-dot-12
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-homenet-dot-12

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-homenet-dot-12


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet