Subject: RE: ND-proxy applicability and loop-prevention

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:14:26 +0200 (EET)

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Soliman Hesham wrote:
>  > The user knows that all of his communication attempts fail.
>  > That's a
>  > good signal that there's something wrong.  If the user knows nothing 
>  > more of this, he calls helpdesk or some support, which may 
>  > be able to 
>  > identify the problem and eliminate it.
> 
> => "may" is the key word. I basically don't believe it.
> I think it'll be problematic enough to be always disabled.

Then they call the second-line support, and figure out the problem.

If this happens commonly enough, it's going to be common knowledge to 
the technical folks.  On the other hand, if it doesn't happen commonly 
enough, who cares?  (Sooner or later someone is going to figure it out 
in any case, and the problem gets fixed shortly by removing the box 
from the looping topology.)

>   or you read documentation, which should 
>  > certainly 
>  > describe this feature.
> 
> => I don't think you understant what an "average user"
> means. It means, get the box, plug it in, it works! 

That's what ND-proxy is for, precisely.  And that's how it operates in 
about every scenario.

Are you suggesting that the scenario where an *average* home user,
knowing nothing techically, would be purchasing *3* of these boxes,
and plugging all of them in the home network in a topology just so
that he'd create a loop?

(loops with 1 or 2 boxes are so obvious I'm not don't think they're
worth considering.)

1 additional box (in addition to the CPE) is common enough.  2 happens
sometimes.  I have trouble figuring why any *average user* would run
the equivalent 3 NAT boxes (or routers) in a home network!  (You and
me could certainly do it, but the average home user is not you or me!  
:)

Time for a reality check here.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Soliman Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:06:12 -0500

> > => I think it's a bad signal, _if_ detected. I.e. An average
 > > user is not even going to know that they have 100% link
 > > utilisation. And _if_ they do, I actually think that neither
 > > the user, nor the help desk first line of support will
 > > have the faintest idea (having been a regular with help
 > > desk people that work for a couple of major operators
 > > in different countries).
 > 

 > 
 > Maybe the shop knows something about how the device operates -- they 
 > certainly should! -- 

=> Maybe shops in your vicinity employ technicians to sell
this stuff but I certainly _never_ saw a shop assistant 
who knows anymore than the text on the box. 

=> I don't think you understant what an "average user"
means. It means, get the box, plug it in, it works! 
I know people that struggle with connecting a DVD to
the TV....let's be realistic. 

 > For the average user, it doesn't have to be more intuitive than that,
 > right?  He only cares whether it works or not.  In the first place
 > 99.9% of people wouldn't be plugging these boxes in 
 > triangles 

=> I disagree with making assumptions about what deployment
scenarios will be like in the next 5-7 years. Thus, I
disagree with your premise about 99.9 % of scenarios.

Hesham