Subject: Re: [homegate] What's a "Home Gateway"?

From: "Woundy, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:47:11 -0400

What problem are we trying to avoid here? Some customers already run multiple cascading routers in the home on their own.

What if the ISP router in the home supports IPv4 and IPv6 routing, but the consumer router supports IPv4 routing and IPv6 bridging? It seems like there could be a number of corner cases in which two routers may make sense.

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thu Jun 25 11:36:10 2009
Subject: Re: [homegate] What's a "Home Gateway"?

>On 25 jun 2009, at 15:28, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:

>> All of a sudden, you have the possibility of two gateway/routers on 
>> the same network - one behind the other - at the trust boundary.

> Seems that we need to require that any and all boxes provided by
service providers be able to function in a 
> modem-only mode, where the user provides the actual home gateway
themselves.

If you want to enforce the "one router in the home" rule, then you need
to explicitly tell the service provider that when there is a router
provided by the user, then the box provided by the service provider MUST
be operating in bridge mode.  I'm not sure that all service providers
that deploy eRouters will trust that the users have configured their
home router properly...

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

---

From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:11:41 -0400

And that would exactly be my point - we have to design protocols in IETF
and come up with a set of requirements for home gateways that does not
preclude the possibility of having two or more cascaded routers in the
home.

- Wes 

-----Original Message-----
From: Woundy, Richard [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 11:47 AM
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [homegate] What's a "Home Gateway"?

What problem are we trying to avoid here? Some customers already run
multiple cascading routers in the home on their own.

What if the ISP router in the home supports IPv4 and IPv6 routing, but
the consumer router supports IPv4 routing and IPv6 bridging? It seems
like there could be a number of corner cases in which two routers may
make sense.

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thu Jun 25 11:36:10 2009
Subject: Re: [homegate] What's a "Home Gateway"?

themselves.

- Wes

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:33:35 +0200

> multiple cascading routers in the home on their own.

The trouble with that is that if the ISP-provided gateway performs NAT  
this prevents the customer gateway from doing some useful things, such  
as opening up incoming ports or running 6to4.

> What if the ISP router in the home supports IPv4 and IPv6 routing,  
> but the consumer router supports IPv4 routing and IPv6 bridging? It  
> seems like there could be a number of corner cases in which two  
> routers may make sense.

It would be a completely legitimate choice to put the customer gateway  
in bridge mode. With IPv6, you could also have multiple cascading  
routers, for instance, one for an office network and one for visitors  
or some such. With IPv4 this is harder because the additional NAT  
layers can create problems.

But the point is that ISPs provide cheap gateways, if the user chooses  
to invest in a better one it would be rather annyoing that this  
doesn't improve things because the limitations of the cheap gateway  
don't go away.

---

From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:59:04 -0400

For instance, I recently debugged a family member's network that had a
DSL NAT box with a DNS proxy and a gateway address of 192.168.1.1.  A
Wireless Access Point was put behind it, and also had a gateway address
of 192.168.1.1, but had no DNS proxy.  Since the name-server address was
set to 192.168.1.1 by the DNS proxy, hosts behind both NAT boxes
attempted to use 192.168.1.1 as the name server, and all DNS lookups
went to the box without the DNS proxy, and failed.  Therefore, they were
unable to use DNS and therefore, could not browse the web.  I solved the
problem by assigning a different address to the inner NAT than the outer
NAT - and all works well.  Regarding other problems with additional NAT
layers, we could design protocols that would allow the NATs to
communicate to each other better to resolve difficulties.

In other words, the problems can be solved without automatically turning
one box into a bridge.

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:34 AM
To: Woundy, Richard
Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [homegate] What's a "Home Gateway"?

It would be a completely legitimate choice to put the customer gateway
in bridge mode. With IPv6, you could also have multiple cascading
routers, for instance, one for an office network and one for visitors or
some such. With IPv4 this is harder because the additional NAT layers
can create problems.

But the point is that ISPs provide cheap gateways, if the user chooses
to invest in a better one it would be rather annyoing that this doesn't
improve things because the limitations of the cheap gateway don't go
away.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:02:11 +0200

> In other words, the problems can be solved without automatically  

But why design new protocols while bridging has been around for a  
decade or two?