Subject: Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-gmann-homenet-relay-autoconf-01.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:21:49 +1300

Hi,

How does this work when there are multiple customer edge routers (CERs),
as in a MIF situation for example?

   Brian

On 2012-03-13 10:14, [email-masked] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> 
> 	Title           : Home Network Autoconfiguration via DHCPv6 Relay
> 	Author(s)       : Chris Grundemann
>                           Chris Donley
> 	Filename        : draft-gmann-homenet-relay-autoconf-01.txt
> 	Pages           : 8
> 	Date            : 2012-03-12
> 
>    This document describes a method for efficiently delegating subnets
>    of an IPv6 prefix among home routers while simultaneously creating
>    functional routing tables in all home routers without the need for a
>    routing protocol.
> 
> 
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gmann-homenet-relay-autoconf-01.txt

---

From: Chris Grundemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:40:05 -0600

>as in a MIF situation for example?

I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with 'MIF.' With apologies, can you tell
me what that stands for?

In general, the current version does not directly address multi-CER
topologies. We noted that (perhaps not especially clearly) in section 2:

"This document assumes that the vast majority of home networks will
   connect to a single ISP and will be generally constructed in a tree
   architecture."

Because we suggest electing the home router attached to the ISP as the
CER, a single ISP would mean a single CER. However, in a multi-CER
situation as long as the two (or more) CERs know each others
prefixes/routes, this mechanism will work. You would simply end up with
two (or more) independent trees connected at the top, through the CERs.

HTH,
~Chris

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

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:21:36 -0400

Chris - you might want to take a look at draft-baker-homenet-prefix-assignment-01, which describes similar technology (if I'm understanding your document correctly).

- Ralph

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:43:38 +1300

> I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with 'MIF.' With apologies, can you tell

What, you don't know *every* 3 letter acronym by heart?

MIF is the IETF Multiple InterFaces working group:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mif/charter/

It's very likely that many homenets will have two providers
(e.g. wireline and wireless) and therefore the issues that MIF is
discussing all affect homenet, as far as I can see.

   Brian

---

From: Chris Grundemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:01:13 -0600

Hi Ralph,

Thanks for the pointer. I had previously read
draft-baker-homenet-prefix-assignment-00 but had not yet seen the -01. I
just read through it again in depth and I agree that we are describing
similar technology. It appears that draft-baker covers the high-level
"home networks could use DHCPv6" while draft-gmann takes a "here's how to
make DHCPv6 Relay work in home networks." If that's a correct observation,
perhaps we should combine forces to document the mechanisms more
completely? I think we could find a way to merge the detailed procedure
and requirements for using DHCPv6 relay from draft-gmann into draft-baker.
The next step would likely be to add detailed steps for using unicast
DHCPv6.

Thoughts?

~Chris

PS - I unfortunately will not be in Paris next week but Chris Donley will
be and I'm sure he'd be happy to talk this through a bit more if you
and/or Fred are amenable and available.

On 3/15/12 12:21 PM, "Ralph Droms" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Chris - you might want to take a look at
>draft-baker-homenet-prefix-assignment-01, which describes similar
>technology (if I'm understanding your document correctly).
>
>- Ralph
>

---

From: Chris Grundemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:13:54 -0600

>What, you don't know *every* 3 letter acronym by heart?

I aspire to. =)

>http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mif/charter/

Thanks.

>discussing all affect homenet, as far as I can see.

That's an interesting assertion. My personal read is that if we apply the
80/20 rule, it will be the 80% (or more) of residential internet
subscribers (homenets) who choose not to pay for two providers.

Cheers,
~Chris

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:51:45 +0100

I should think we could combine forces.

The -00 also proposed a way to use DHCP/DHCPv6 within the home, and the working group didn't like it (an option on the RA). If the working group likes yours, then it's an obvious fit.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:20:58 +0000

> subscribers (homenets) who choose not to pay for two providers.

One of the things to nail down in/by Paris is the level of multihoming support required in the homenet arch text.

Currently single CER, multiple uplink is required, beyond that multiple CER, multiple uplink support is only "desirable".  

Tim

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:20:44 +1300

> Currently single CER, multiple uplink is required, beyond that multiple CER, multiple uplink support is only "desirable".  

Realistically, if a random customer ends up with an ADSL box and a 4G device,
both capable of operating as a CER, they will both try to connect. If this
happens in 20%, 10% or 5% of homes, we're looking at hundreds of millions
of instances. It seems more than "desirable" that this works.

    Brian