Subject: AW: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-00.txt

From: "Bonness, Olaf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:29:05 +0100

Hi Ronald,

from my point of view it's fairly obvious to have different subnets within my soho environment for instance one for every room I have or besides that when I want to use parts of my home (network) for professional reasons and want to separate this from my normal / private life.

My 2cents
	Olaf

-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ronald van der Pol [mailto:[email-masked]]
Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Marz 2003 13:10
An: Bound, Jim
Cc: Christian Huitema; Pekka Savola; Ronald van der Pol; Margaret
Wasserman; [email-masked]
Betreff: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-00.txt

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 23:47:18 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> I don't agree with single link subnet.  This is not cool and implies I
> use bridges in my house.  In fact a colleague is now looking into UPnP
> to verify it is not stating this as we received rumor this was potential
> there too. People will run routers in their homes and SOHO's not only
> bridges with single subnet.
> That case will happen and we are not covering it.

You seem to be quite confident about that. Could you explain why you
think multiple subnets will arrive in SOHOs? I'm not saying I don't
agree with you. I just would like to know the scenarios where multiple
subnets are needed. And when they are needed. I think we have already
spent too much time on the scenario/analysis drafts. We should not
delay any longer when it is not absolutely necessary.

Another question is whether v6ops should pick this up. Maybe zerouter
(if that is going to be a WG) is a better place and we need to make
sure they cover IPv6, unmanaged networks and SOHOs too.

	rvdp

---

From: Ronald van der Pol <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:43:53 +0100

> from my point of view it's fairly obvious to have different subnets within my soho environment for instance one for every room I have or besides that when I want to use parts of my home (network) f…

Yes, but I would like to know why it is fairly obvious. Is it because
you want to use different ACLs on the different subnets? (ACLs and
unmanaged networks don't fit well together :-) Is it because they use
different technologies with different MTUs. Something else?

	rvdp

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:04:05 +0200 (EET)

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Bonness, Olaf wrote:
> from my point of view it's fairly obvious to have different subnets
> within my soho environment for instance one for every room I have or
> besides that when I want to use parts of my home (network) for
> professional reasons and want to separate this from my normal / private
> life.

This in my book is clearly not _un_managed network.

In my book, if you have to set different perimeters with different 
properties, hook up different segments to different router ports, etc. 
etc., it is IMO clearly not the majority *unmanaged* solution.

YMMV.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:58:23 +0000

So are we addressing unmanaged networks or home networks?  Just need to
choose and name the work accordingly, given that not all home networks will
be unmanaged.

Sections 1 and 2 need to be tightened up either way.  If the home network
receives a /48 from the ISP (not unreasonable - if we assume a /64 then 
we're ignoring the RIR /48 site recommendations) then *something* has to 
be managed to deliver the /64 subnet(s) internally?  Or are we saying all
home networks will be "unmanaged" and receive /64's?

Tim