Re: [homenet] IEEE 1905.1 and 1905.1a

Is there a typo or paste error below? The text reads : "...and an optional distributed model in which a centralized...(snip)" Is it centralized or distributed? Randy > On Mar 27, 2015, at 12:36 AM, Philippe Klein wrote: > > IEEE 1905.1 is a protocol that has been designed (I was one of the in

Re: [homenet] HNCP security?

A cert by itself is more or less a wrapper ­ but that¹s not the way PKI works (certs by themselves) - you have certs and trust anchors ­ the anchors being the method by verifying the identity of the person presenting the cert ­ you can do proof of possession as well to very the identity supplicant

Re: [homenet] HNCP security?

smartphone Original message From: "STARK, BARBARA H" Date:09/18/2014 5:02 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Randy Turner , Michael Thomas , homenet@ietf.org Cc: Subject: RE: [homenet] HNCP security? > How do you bootstrap trust relationships without an initial certificat

Re: [homenet] HNCP security?

Are we assuming that the home router is purchased retail, and not "fulfilled" or provided by an ISP? The method to establish trust relationships would hinge on the answer Randy Original message From: Mark Baugher Date:09/18/2014 5:12 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Ra

Re: [homenet] HNCP security?

How do you bootstrap trust relationships without an initial certificate (whether installed at manufacturing or during a customer fulfillment stage) ? Original message From: Michael Thomas Date:09/18/2014 4:17 PM (GMT-06:00) To: homenet@ietf.org Cc: Subject: Re: [homene

Re: [homenet] prefix assignment on home networks

le that some ISP is doing > that. > > Andrew > > On 15/11/2012, at 6:27 AM, Randy Turner wrote: > >> >> Have their been any ISPs that have come forward to discuss their consumer >> IPv6 allocation plans? I don't think we should wrap ourselves

Re: [homenet] prefix assignment on home networks

Meant to say a 32-bit address space for the home would be more than enough…:) R. On Nov 14, 2012, at 9:27 AM, Randy Turner wrote: > > Have their been any ISPs that have come forward to discuss their consumer > IPv6 allocation plans? I don't think we should wrap ourselves

Re: [homenet] prefix assignment on home networks

12, at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >> On 14/11/2012 02:34, Randy Turner wrote: >>> I was thinking that, in an effort to reduce scope to something we can deal >>> with for now, that a /64 would be big enough >> >> It simply isn't, because it do

Re: [homenet] prefix assignment on home networks

so much more than I have today. Randy On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:47 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > On Nov 13, 2012, at 10:33 , Randy Turner wrote: > >> I've been away from the list for awhile, and am trying to catch up -- is >> there a reference or quick explanation as to w

[homenet] prefix assignment on home networks

Hi All, I've been away from the list for awhile, and am trying to catch up -- is there a reference or quick explanation as to why a "/64" assigned to a home network is considered to be potentially "constrained" somehow ? Thanks, Randy On Nov 13, 2012, at 10:2

Re: [homenet] When things go wrong on your homenet

Given the "complexity" of a potential home net, a complexity that is often alluded to on the mail list (including below), there will no doubt be "policy" that has to be introduced - a policy language or facility that can be described or communicated by an end user, preferably without technical

Re: [homenet] Security goals

+1 Robert Cragie wrote: >I like the idea of developing a generic threat model for homenets. This >should frame what we are up against and make it clearer what the >appropriate countermeasures should be and where they are best placed. > >Robert > >On 28/03/2012 8:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote

Re: [homenet] Security goals

You can have real e2e even with a middlebox performing some type of security, so e2e and CPE-firewall are not mutually exclusive. The CPE firewall (we really need to decide the functionality of what we're calling a firewall here) would be a way to centralize some amount of security policy for t

Re: [homenet] Discovery [snmp for monitoring home network]

trying to solve. R. On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:12 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Mar 10, 2012, at 10:51 PM, Randy Turner wrote: >> Just seems like the IETF has tried to address one of our requirements (zero >> configuration) in the past -- if the IETF has already published propos

Re: [homenet] Discovery [snmp for monitoring home network]

R. On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Mar 10, 2012, at 9:19 PM, Randy Turner wrote: >> it would be unfortunate if the output of the previous IETF "zeroconf" WG >> wasn't put to good use, or if not s

Re: [homenet] Discovery [snmp for monitoring home network]

Zero configuration seems to be a goal of our work…it would be unfortunate if the output of the previous IETF "zeroconf" WG wasn't put to good use, or if not sufficient, extended. Randy On Mar 10, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > Hi Brian, > > To be honest, I was not wedded to mDNS (or

Re: [homenet] Framing homenet borders and default policies

After a 2nd reading of the current arch doc, I'm still not sure where the "bounding box" is around our work - seems like the language in section 3 should be tightened up - or rephrased to emphasize that the list of topology support is normative and not a set of examples Randy On Mar 6, 2012,

Re: [homenet] Home DNS server for homenet

+1 On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Jim Gettys wrote: > On 03/06/2012 01:49 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:23 AM, james woodyatt > > wrote: >> >>On Mar 6, 2012, at 07:15 , Michael Richardson >> wrote: >>> "Mark" =

Re: [homenet] Getting ready for Paris

I noticed there was a new homenet-related draft that talks about the "minimum" physical layout required for homenet-related technology Have we defined a bounding box around the types of home networking technology we are targeting, or a "maximally complicated" layout that homenet will be able t

Re: [homenet] Next steps

I basically agree with what James is stating here, but we're talking about the "error" part of the "trial and error" -- we can allow "plug this in to see if it works…" but we need a consumer friendly way to tell him it doesn't work (The "error" part) Randy On Dec 12, 2011, at 11:23 AM, james

Re: [homenet] other routing options

Should we be looking at what the IEEE p1905.1 group is doing…their PAR reads like there may be some synergy between what we have been discussing and their scope of work. Apologies if this has come up before… Randy ___ homenet mailing list homenet@

Re: [homenet] Creating a security association via physical link + button

e have a document or other work that performs the due diligence on threats to the Homenet. Randy On Nov 25, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > >> On Nov 25, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Randy Turner wrote: >>> I think I agree

Re: [homenet] Creating a security association via physical link + button

> "Similarly, a wired broadband or 3G/LTE wireless connection to an ISP router > in the neighborhood has its own authentication and policy enforcement > happening at L2. " I'm curious if we want to "assume" a particular type of broadband connection is in use, or do we want the Homenet solution

Re: [homenet] Creating a security association via physical link + button

I think I agree that confidentiality of routing traffic is probably not an issue for Homenet - however, I do think we should consider integrity of routing traffic - ie, router A should "trust" that route updates from router B are correct. That being said, this is just an intuitive feeling regar

Re: [homenet] Creating a security association via physical link + button

"how cheap?" it depends -- whether you're talking about retail, or the bare bones prices being demanded by NSPs from box vendors and whether or not these NSPs have a broad and popular suite of homenet services to allow subsidizing the boxes The overall point here is that these boxes probably ha

Re: [homenet] other routing options

Apple, Sony, Samsung, et.al., will use DLNA and other types of mechanisms that rely on multicast for service (content) discovery on the home network. Once the streams actually "start", they are currently unicast, but even this will change very soon. Randy On Nov 23, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Howard,

Re: [homenet] other routing options

tute zOSPF anytime someone mentions OSPF. R. On Nov 22, 2011, at 11:10 PM, Randy Turner wrote: > > So we either bite off much more than we need and get the flexibility of > link-state (OSPF), or we add "bounds" to a Bellman-Ford implementation to > constrain the count-to-in

Re: [homenet] other routing options

Nov 22, 2011, at 10:45 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Nov 22, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Randy Turner wrote: > >> That's how I felt until incredibly elaborate home net topologies were >> suggested -- but it still seems intuitively heavyweight for a "home" >> netw

Re: [homenet] other routing options

"OSPF is too much protocol…" That's how I felt until incredibly elaborate home net topologies were suggested -- but it still seems intuitively heavyweight for a "home" network. If we do end up using OSPF, then maybe home networks are *not* simple as one would think, but rather a different ins

Re: [homenet] Creating a security association via physical link + button

Home routers with a natural WAN interface such as DSL or Docsis are built from reference designs that "hardwire" the "internet" interface, including any firewall-like functionality Randy Original message Subject: Re: [homenet] Creating a security association via physical link

Re: [homenet] pervasive v4

Was the intent of naming and discovery to try and reuse the zeroconf/mdns stuff or something new? Thanks! Randy Original message Subject: Re: [homenet] pervasive v4 From: Ray Bellis To: Randy Turner CC: "" On 16 Nov 2011, at 14:35, Randy Turner wrote:

Re: [homenet] pervasive v4

Good points...Speaking of Bonjour, I haven't seen many references to support for multicast (yet)...I'm assuming this is on the plate. Randy On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Nov 16, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Erik Nordmark wrote: >> The service call will be something like "the intern

Re: [homenet] draft-baker-homenet-prefix-assignment

If you want to configure more than just layer-3 connectivity, seems like you would need *something* ... Randy On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Nov 16, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Ole Troan wrote: >> do we need to? >> in a self organizing unmanaged home; if we were to do a combinatio

Re: [homenet] privacy vs subnet-id

Once HomeNet is "figured out", a real subsequent challenge will be to address how to translate any leftover configuration required for the end user. This would be anything we couldn't figure out how to auto-configure. By "translate" I mean translating any geek-speak config concepts into equival

Re: [homenet] secret sharing among devices

+(n). ;) On Nov 15, 2011, at 3:13 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Joe Touch wrote: >> I'll remember that next time I login using the iPad to alter its config ;-) > > IETF geeks are not the target end user! :) > > ___ > homen

Re: [homenet] privacy vs subnet-id

Homenet admin? Randy Original message Subject: Re: [homenet] privacy vs subnet-id From: Brian E Carpenter To: Tim Chown CC: "homenet@ietf.org Group" On 2011-11-15 16:03, Tim Chown wrote: > So at the moment all the arch text says on privacy is: >    Privacy consideration

Re: [homenet] Question for you

reasonable. > > Tony > > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Randy Turner wrote: > >> >> I would hope that we would NOT be seriously considering OSPF or IS-IS in the >> home...this seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. How many routes >> ar

Re: [homenet] Question for you

I would hope that we would NOT be seriously considering OSPF or IS-IS in the home...this seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. How many routes are we talking about for a home network? I don't believe any enterprise routing protocol was designed for a "zeroconf" or "zeroadmin" type o