Subject: [homenet] #8: Proxy or extend?

From: "homenet issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:42:35 -0000

#8: Proxy or extend?

 Do we wish to state a preference for how protocols that currently work
 within a single subnet can be made to work within a multi-subnet homenet
 site?  Proxies could be defined at subnet boundaries (e.g. as per DHCPv6
 relays) or protocols could be extended to site scope (e.g. the recent
 xmDNS proposal). Or is this a per-protocol decision?

-- 
-------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  tjc@…  |      Owner:  draft-ietf-homenet-arch@…
     Type:  task   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major  |  Milestone:
Component:  arch   |    Version:
 Severity:  -      |   Keywords:
-------------------+---------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/homenet/trac/ticket/8>
homenet <http://tools.ietf.org/homenet/>

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:16:27 -0500

Make it per-use-case and the use-case tells one what protocol to proxy.  Thus the design is focused rather that looking at every protocol on the planet that the CE or the homenet could use. 

Regards,

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of homenet issue tracker
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 7:43 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [homenet] #8: Proxy or extend?

#8: Proxy or extend?

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:53:01 +0000

We have been discussing the applicability of this in the context of
advanced, dual stack premise networking.  From our perspective there is a
need for this particularly with regards to premises that have multiple,
routed subnets.

It seems to me that we need not reinvent the mechanisms for service
discovery/advertisement.

To comment on the question below, I believe we should be providing
guidance on this topic.  This will help to ensure that some minimum
functionality is specified.  This will still leave room for
differentiation, etc.

If the mechanism is provided then any service could conceivably be
discovered using the same.

Based on my thinking so far proxies could present resource challenges for
some types of devices, conversely extension may be slightly more
complicated.  More to come on proxy versus extension.

John 
-----Original Message-----
From: homenet issue tracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:42:35 +0000
To: <[email-masked]>, Tim Chown
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [homenet]  #8: Proxy or extend?
Resent-From: <[email-masked]>
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:42:42 -0700

> Reporter:  tjc@Š  |      Owner:  draft-ietf-homenet-arch@Š
>     Type:  task   |     Status:  new