Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:24:31 +0000

Folks,

I expect to have a DOCSIS network available during IETF86 for Bits-n-Bytes
if there is interest in having real broadband equipment in the HOMENET lab
please let me know I will do my best to accommodate.  After we got
everything up an running I recall that some (or all) of the running code
that was available during IETF85 had some issue interoperating with a live
IPv6 enabled broadband network.  The cable broadband network was
functioning as it does today in production.

I wanted to make sure everyone was aware that the environment would be
available again in case there was an interest in testing (and/or fixing)
their implementations.

Regards,

John
=========================================
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
m) +1-609-377-6594
e) mailto:[email-masked]
o) +1-484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
=========================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, January 21, 2013 12:25 PM
To: "[email-masked] Group" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

>
>Group,
>
>Happy new year everyone. The next IETF will be upon us soon.
>
>Last IETF, we had two implementations based on
>draft-arkko-homenet-prefix-assignment and
>draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig running about. Bugs in code as well as
>bugs in specs were found. We had a number of people bringing along their
>hosts and plugging them into the various router ports, and people
>randomly changing the wiring to see if would keep working. Ironically,
>uplinks to the outside world gave us some of the biggest headaches, and
>with better planning we should be able to alleviate those problems if we
>do this again. In any case, it was overall a positive experience, and
>we're considering now whether or not to try and do it again.
>
>If you have an implementation of a protocol within the scope of the
>homenet charter and homenet architecture (draft-ietf-homenet-arch-06)
>based on an internet draft targeted to the homenet working group that you
>would like to test with others, please send the list or chairs an email
>so we can evaluate whether or not to schedule a place for you to get
>together and work with others in person in Orlando. Note that this isn't
>for "showcasing", but for working... so be expected to configure,
>reconfigure, and change code on the fly accordingly.
>
>Please let us know ASAP, as March is coming soon!
>
>Thanks,
>
>- Mark & Ray 
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>homenet mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:21:34 +0900

+1 for stuff that works in the real world. "Running code" isn't running
code if it doesn't, well, run. :-)

Mark, Jari, is it possible to revive the autoconfig/source-routing demo
that we had in Atlanta? Even if it's only for a limited time, I think it's
important to show that (or "whether", depending on your point of view) this
stuff can work in the real world.

John: assuming it's possible to revive the demo, then I think it would be
enough to have two cable modems connected to a live network that hands out
"something larger than /64" by default. If we don't have PD or if we don't
have greater than /64 then there's not much point in attempting routing. :-)

Does that sound possible?

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:16:15 -0500

>>>>> "Lorenzo" == Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]> writes:
    Lorenzo> +1 for stuff that works in the real world. "Running code" isn't running
    Lorenzo> code if it doesn't, well, run. :-)

    Lorenzo> Mark, Jari, is it possible to revive the autoconfig/source-routing demo
    Lorenzo> that we had in Atlanta? Even if it's only for a limited time, I think it's
    Lorenzo> important to show that (or "whether", depending on your point of view) this
    Lorenzo> stuff can work in the real world.

    Lorenzo> John: assuming it's possible to revive the demo, then I think it would be
    Lorenzo> enough to have two cable modems connected to a live network that hands out
    Lorenzo> "something larger than /64" by default. If we don't have PD or if we don't
    Lorenzo> have greater than /64 then there's not much point in
    Lorenzo> attempting routing. :-)

Would/could another foot of such a network be on the IETF network?

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:40:25 +0900

> Would/could another foot of such a network be on the IETF network?

If the IETF network didn't respond to DHCPv6 PD requests, it wouldn't be
much use.

---

From: David Lamparter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:49:34 +0100

> If the IETF network didn't respond to DHCPv6 PD requests, it wouldn't be

Even without DHCPv6 PD on the remainder of the IETF network, it might be
possible to get a /52../56 and run a DHCPv6 PD ourselves, emulating part
of the provider network.

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:14:30 +0000

We were delegating /56s last time.  Definitely doable in Orlando.

John
=========================================
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
m) 484-962-0060
e) [email-masked]
o) 609-377-6594
w) www.comcast6.net
=========================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:21 PM
To: John Jason Brzozowski <[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko
<[email-masked]>
Cc: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] Group"
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

>that we had in Atlanta? Even if it's only for a limited time, I think
>it's important to show that (or "whether", depending on your point of
>view) this stuff can work in the
> real world.
>
>
>enough to have two cable modems connected to a live network that hands
>out "something larger than /64" by default. If we don't have PD or if we
>don't have greater than /64
> then there's not much point in attempting routing. :-)
>
>
>On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Brzozowski, John
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>Folks,
>
>m) +1-609-377-6594 <tel:%2B1-609-377-6594>
>o) +1-484-962-0060 <tel:%2B1-484-962-0060>

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:16:13 +0000

Plus what media is being tested, ethernet?

-----Original Message-----
From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:40 PM
To: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Cc: John Jason Brzozowski <[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] Group" <[email-masked]>, Mark
Townsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

><[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:17:06 +0000

Why emulate it?  Is the intention here to test the the code on an
enterprise or corporate network?

-----Original Message-----
From: David Lamparter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:49 PM
To: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Cc: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Mark Townsley
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] Group" <[email-masked]>, Jari
Arkko <[email-masked]>, John Jason Brzozowski
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

---

From: David Lamparter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 05:41:28 +0100

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 04:17:06AM +0000, Brzozowski, John wrote:
> David Lamparter wrote:

The scope of the plugfest is the interior and border of the homenet.  To
get the border right, we need the service provider side of that border
in some form.  If the IETF network runs DHCPv6-PD, that is an usable
approximation.

My suggestion was for the case that the IETF network won't be running
DHCPv6-PD.  In that case, the easiest way to make the IETF network
usable as one uplink for the homenet plugfest is to ask for a /52 to be
made available for the plugfest in some static way and then provide
DHCPv6-PD from that, running on some random PC box/laptop somewhere.

Actually - controlling the DHCPv6-PD might be advantageous in order to
allow tinkering with it to see how the testbed reacts.

-David

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:53:29 -0500

>>>>> "Brzozowski," == Brzozowski, John <[email-masked]> writes:
    Brzozowski> Why emulate it?  Is the intention here to test the the code on an
    Brzozowski> enterprise or corporate network?

Walled Garden :-)

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:40:53 -0800

> possible to get a /52../56 and run a DHCPv6 PD ourselves, emulating part
that's a straight forward request to the noc, that said time is getting 
tight so if you want support for your experiment during the meeting I'd 
reach out expeditiously.

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:14:09 +0000

Where the home has ethernet run to it?

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:53 PM
To: John Jason Brzozowski <[email-masked]>
Cc: David Lamparter <[email-masked]>, Lorenzo Colitti
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] Group" <[email-masked]>, Jari
Arkko <[email-masked]>, Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

>
>>>>>> "Brzozowski," == Brzozowski, John
>>>>>><[email-masked]> writes:

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:14:08 +0000

Statically assigning prefixes may enable testing but is not how homes will
be provisioned in reality.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Lamparter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:41 PM
To: John Jason Brzozowski <[email-masked]>
Cc: David Lamparter <[email-masked]>, Lorenzo Colitti
<[email-masked]>, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked] Group" <[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko
<[email-masked]>, Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

---

From: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:35:17 -0800

I am primarily focused on demonstrating solutions to bufferbloat in my
portion of bit's and bytes.

But I note that the present CeroWrt build appears to have working dhcp-pd
(I've successfully got /56 /60, /61/ /62 subnets from it), and assigning
that to the 6+ internal interfaces, support for every other form of ipv6
tunneling, the latest dnsmasq which has some good ways of bonding dns names
to ipv6 AAAAs, support for routing ipv4 and ipv6 subnetworks over the
quagga babel protocol (the two routers I'm demoing are meshed together at
5ghz)

We had to fix a few nasty instruction traps in the ipv6 stack last month,
but after doing that, I'm pretty pleased with the over-all performance and
reliability - it survived the "thc" ipv6 tests handily, for example. Could
use some more exaustive real-world testing, so, get it (for the wndr3700v2
and 3800 series)

http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/cerowrt/wndr/3.7.5-2/

We also have specialized  builds for the ubiquity nanostation m5 and
picostation m2hp products deployed in the campground testbed.

We still haven't done anything with distributing prefixes inside the home
beside ahcp, and I still find the dynamicism required by renting ipv6
addresses to so impact in so many aspects of the "sane usage of stuff like
printers", and naming, and the security model as to *demand* ipv6 nat in
the home... but I did not get around to implementing npt66 in this
release!!

(so those that would flame me for this opinion can hold off (pretty
please!?) until perhaps I can go into the implementation details of all the
many things that break today... with those that care. )

In terms of interop, besides dhcp-pd and bufferbloat fixes, I'd rather like
to see if these release can be made to work with ospfv6 on other devices.
What else will be shown? The original homenet code was far too large to be
usable on such a small device, but perhaps at least the ospf layer could be
tried.

And all that said, I'm rather totally buried with tests for, processing a
ton of data from the field, and testing nfq_codel/bufferbloat. I just
finished giving talks on that at MIT and Stanford on that stuff

What's wrong with wifi?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wksh2DPHCDI&feature=youtu.be

Intro to codel and fq_codel:

http://netseminar.stanford.edu/

-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt:
http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:57:14 +0000

Since BnB is one night can we make provisions for the home net lab area to
be open all week?  Mark? Ray?

Seems like it would be worth it.  I am thinking all week would be ideal.
;)

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:35 AM
To: John Jason Brzozowski <[email-masked]>
Cc: David Lamparter <[email-masked]>, Michael Richardson
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] Group" <[email-masked]>, Mark
Townsley <[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>, Lorenzo
Colitti <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

>tunneling, the latest dnsmasq which has
> some good ways of bonding dns names to ipv6 AAAAs, support for routing
>ipv4 and ipv6 subnetworks over the quagga babel protocol (the two routers
>I'm demoing are meshed together at 5ghz)
>
>but after doing that, I'm pretty pleased with the over-all performance
>and reliability - it survived the "thc" ipv6 tests handily, for example.
>Could use some more exaustive real-world
> testing, so, get it (for the wndr3700v2 and 3800 series)
>
>addresses to so impact in so many aspects of the "sane usage of stuff
>like printers", and naming, and the security
> model as to *demand* ipv6 nat in the home... but I did not get around to
>implementing npt66 in this release!!
>
>
>please!?) until perhaps I can go into the implementation details of all
>the many things that break today... with those that care. )
>
>In terms of interop, besides dhcp-pd and bufferbloat fixes, I'd rather
>like to see if these release can be made to work with ospfv6 on other
>devices. What else will be shown? The original homenet code was far too
>large to be usable on such a small device, but
> perhaps at least the ospf layer could be tried.
>
>On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Brzozowski, John
>m) 484-962-0060 <tel:484-962-0060>
>o) 609-377-6594 <tel:609-377-6594>
>w) www.comcast6.net <http://www.comcast6.net>
><[email-masked]>, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]
><mailto:[email-masked]>>,
>>> >> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>wrote:
>>> >>
><http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html>

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:06:45 +0900

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Dave Taht <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I still find the dynamicism required by renting ipv6 addresses to so
> impact in so many aspects of the "sane usage of stuff like printers", and
> naming, and the security model as to *demand* ipv6 nat in the home...

Sigh.

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:34:21 -0800

Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Dave Taht <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     impact in so many aspects of the "sane usage of stuff like
>     printers", and naming, and the security model as to *demand* ipv6
>     nat in the home...
> 
> 
> Sigh. 

Sigh all you like, but I share Dave's skepticism that ISP's renumbering my prefix
willy-nilly and it just sort of works with naming -- including addresses squirrelled
away in places they ought not be -- is going to work any time soon. I don't like to
think that NAT is inevitable but frankly the people in this working group don't get
to vote on that.

Speaking to the title of this thread: has anybody actually demonstrated such a thing
end to end? It strikes me as Frankensteinian when you get all of the body parts bolted
together.

Mike

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:48:16 +0900

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Michael Thomas <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Sigh.
>>
>
> Sigh all you like, but I share Dave's skepticism that ISP's renumbering my
> prefix willy-nilly and it just sort of works with naming -- including
> addresses squirrelled away in places they ought not be -- is going to work
> any time soon.

That's why we have ULAs and multiple prefixes.

I don't like to think that NAT is inevitable but frankly the people in this
> working group don't get to vote on that.
>

Actually they do. They have the freedom to specify alternatives, and
depending on how good a job they do, implementers may choose to use them.

> Speaking to the title of this thread: has anybody actually demonstrated
> such a thing end to end? It strikes me as Frankensteinian when you get all
> of the body parts bolted together.
>

What thing exactly? Multiprefix multihoming? End-to-end connectivity in
general?

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:57:08 -0800

Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Michael Thomas <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>         Sigh.
> 
> 
>     Sigh all you like, but I share Dave's skepticism that ISP's
>     renumbering my prefix willy-nilly and it just sort of works with
>     naming -- including addresses squirrelled away in places they ought
>     not be -- is going to work any time soon.
> 
> 

ULA's are of limited use. I still want to start my washing machine regardless of
whether I'm at home or not.

>     I don't like to think that NAT is inevitable but frankly the people
>     in this working group don't get to vote on that.
> 
> 

Wishful thinking. NAT's didn't start with the blessing of IETF as I recall. They just
happened. If the alternatives are too whacked out, history will repeat itself.

>     Speaking to the title of this thread: has anybody actually
>     demonstrated such a thing end to end? It strikes me as
>     Frankensteinian when you get all of the body parts bolted together.
> 
> 

Yes, along with naming, security, prefix delegation across multiple routers, and isp's
giving and withdrawing prefixes due to renumbering. I'm dubious that this has happened
in real life with networks with people whose day job is to worry about such things, and
I'd be astonished to hear such a thing has been shown to work on a home network.

Mike

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:59:59 +0000

Not sure I buy the security model angle, IPv4 NAT != security.  It would
be great if we had a group working on service discoveryŠoh wait!?

-----Original Message-----
From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:06 PM
To: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
Cc: John Jason Brzozowski <[email-masked]>, David
Lamparter <[email-masked]>, Michael Richardson
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] Group" <[email-masked]>, Mark
Townsley <[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:00:01 +0000

I second the sigh FWIW.  And I do not share Dave's view on IPv6 NAT.

What are you asking to be demonstrated?  IPv6 NAT?

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:34 PM
To: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Cc: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>, Michael Richardson
<[email-masked]>, Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko
<[email-masked]>, John Jason Brzozowski
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] Group"
<[email-masked]>, David Lamparter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

>such a thing

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:01:31 +0000

>depending on how good a job they do, implementers may choose to use them.

Šand providing that these are specified by people who know what they doing
and understand the problem that is being solved/addressed.  :O

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:08:27 +0000

-----Original Message-----

Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:57 PM

>whether I'm at home or not.
[jjmb] maybe today, who knows about tomorrow.
>happened. If the alternatives are too whacked out, history will repeat
[jjmb] not sure I agree here, the conditions and parameters are different
today specifically there are currently no issues with IPv6 resource
availability.
>I'd be astonished to hear such a thing has been shown to work on a home
[jjmb] hmmm we have quite a few real customers that are using IPv6 enabled
on a daily basis mostly using technology that we specified ~8 years ago.
Does this count?

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:48:05 -0500

> think that NAT is inevitable but frankly the people in this working group don't get

It's probably also worth mentioning that in general ISPs that do this on a regular basis are attacking their customer's network, and the resulting instability is not the result of a failing on our part, but deliberate action on the part of the ISP.

There are countries where ISPs are required by law to _offer_ a change of address every 24 hours for privacy purposes.   At least in the cases I'm aware of, ISPs don't _force_ this on their customers, but rather it's a configuration option paranoid customers can choose, which may default to on.    This is an inconvenience to ISPs, because it causes address pool churn, and requires a lot of extra bits to be allocated to PE devices to accommodate all the deprecated addresses.

Pretty much by definition, if you want to access your washing machine while away from home, you're throwing that particular sort of privacy right out the window.   It wasn't buying you much anyway--fuzzing the prefix by a few bits is very easy to reverse, and because of routing hierarchies, IPv6 prefixes can't be assigned to the customer out of the ISP's entire address space--by definition they will be restricted to localities.

The other use case for frequent renumbering is an ISP who wants to prevent the customer from setting up servers.   The washing machine is a server.   Either the ISP succeeds, or fails, but in either case, they are acting directly against the customer's wishes.    We can try to design a system that's robust with respect to attacks like this, but in practice the best way to address this problem is to prevent it happening on a regular basis to people who will care about it.

---

From: Wuyts Carl <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:51:42 +0100

Small add-on to the address-renew policy @ some ISPs

Some ISPs do refresh the IP every XX hours for several reasons:
* privacy
* different contracts, i.e. you pay more for fixed IP over dynamic IP, i.e. allows hosting on same IP

The same will be applied for IPv6.

Best regards
Carl Wuyts
Help preserve the color of our world - Think before you print.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: vrijdag 22 februari 2013 15:48
To: Michael Thomas
Cc: Michael Richardson; Mark Townsley; Dave Taht; Jari Arkko; Brzozowski, John; [email-masked] Group; David Lamparter; Lorenzo Colitti
Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:34 PM, Michael Thomas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> not be -- is going to work any time soon. I don't like to think that 
> NAT is inevitable but frankly the people in this working group don't get to vote on that.

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:37:52 -0800

> The other use case for frequent renumbering is an ISP who wants to prevent the customer from setting up servers.   The washing machine is a server.   Either the ISP succeeds, or fails, but in eithe…

Is there any way to convince the powers that be that v6 address privacy is a better/acceptable solution than
prefix-based privacy? Is there really anything that needs to be done for v6 on that account other than just
switching on the, oh say, laptop?

Mike

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:41:55 -0800

> on a daily basis mostly using technology that we specified ~8 years ago.

Not really because my understanding is that these networks are giving a service
that is pretty much the same as their v4 counterpart which is completely client
centric. I seriously want globally accessible servers on my home network to be
1st class citizens and that implies naming and security/admission control. The
future is now: a Raspberry Pi is $35. Tomorrow, we'll be getting gratuitous IP-enabled
controllers on everything whether we want them or not just like when digital controls
replaced analog.

Mike

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:24:27 +0100

> be open all week?  Mark? Ray?

Let's give it a shot!

But... the chairs can only make the request. Allocating IETF space is something only the ADs are authorized to do. In Atlanta,  I asked for space and was turned down (citing too short notice, specs not mature enough, etc.). IPSO graciously gave us some squatting room, but we were not able to get what we needed from the IETF NOC in that particular location. So, while good work was done, it came with support headaches (e.g., ISP uplinks were simulated via tunnels sourced from a router than joined the IETF network like any other wireless host).

> Seems like it would be worth it.  I am thinking all week would be ideal.

I think that's a necessity. The request I sent in January to the list included: "Note that this isn't for 'showcasing', but for working... so be expected to configure, reconfigure, and change code on the fly accordingly." I think that is very important, and in order for that to happen, we need more than a couple of hours here or there.

What I am hearing is that we currently have requests to provide workspace for:

1. draft-grundemann-homenet-hipnet-00 
2. perhaps CeroWRT?
3. perhaps draft-arkko-homenet-prefix-assignment and draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig again? 

Last time, we were asked from the ADs things like:

- How many implementations existed and how many would be present on site to test. 
- What drafts or RFCs would be tested
- How much space, and for how long
- Power and network requirements
etc...

John B, Dave T, are the two of you the right folks for us to work offline with in order to try and put together the right ask?

Thanks,

- Mark

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:02:35 -0800

On 2/21/13 5:06 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>     I still find the dynamicism required by renting ipv6 addresses to
>     so impact in so many aspects of the "sane usage of stuff like
Consumers don't statically assign ip addresses today I don't imagine 
they will do so the future. stability is provided by upper layer 
mechanisms be those dynamic dns updates, mdns,netbios upnp dlna and so on.

 From my vantage point renumbering in the case where very little is 
static is a lot like a drawn out mobility event.

My laptop and my phone can locate each other whether they're on my 
office wifi network or my home wifi network.

when I moved my printer from palo alto to moutain view (and between 
service providers) I didn't have to reconfigure it to find it, I just 
plugged it in.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:47:24 -0500

> switching on the, oh say, laptop?

I don't think address-based privacy offers any privacy at all, since the tracker can just track the prefix.   The problem is that this is also true of the customer prefix. I think the idea that you can get privacy by changing the IP address or prefix is hopelessly naive.   If you want privacy, you probably need something like TOR, only commercial, but even then what you get is privacy from everybody but your TOR provider.

Ironically, the simplest version of this commercial TOR for IPv6 is an NPTv6 router somewhere near the backbone.   :}

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:54:26 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:48 AM
To: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>, Michael Richardson
<[email-masked]>, Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>, Dave Taht
<[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>, John Jason
Brzozowski <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] Group"
<[email-masked]>, David Lamparter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

>It's probably also worth mentioning that in general ISPs that do this on
>a regular basis are attacking their customer's network, and the resulting
>instability is not the result of a failing on our part, but deliberate
>action on the part of the ISP.
[jjmb] not sure I would say renumbering is attacking, it may be referred
to as running a network.  FWIW this happens today with IPv4.

>
>There are countries where ISPs are required by law to _offer_ a change of
>address every 24 hours for privacy purposes.   At least in the cases I'm
>aware of, ISPs don't _force_ this on their customers, but rather it's a
>configuration option paranoid customers can choose, which may default to
>on.    This is an inconvenience to ISPs, because it causes address pool
>churn, and requires a lot of extra bits to be allocated to PE devices to
>accommodate all the deprecated addresses.
[jjmb] first I have heard of this, interesting.
>
>Pretty much by definition, if you want to access your washing machine
>while away from home, you're throwing that particular sort of privacy
>right out the window.   It wasn't buying you much anyway--fuzzing the
>prefix by a few bits is very easy to reverse, and because of routing
>hierarchies, IPv6 prefixes can't be assigned to the customer out of the
>ISP's entire address space--by definition they will be restricted to
>localities.
>
>The other use case for frequent renumbering is an ISP who wants to
>prevent the customer from setting up servers.   The washing machine is a
>server.   Either the ISP succeeds, or fails, but in either case, they are
>acting directly against the customer's wishes.
[jjmb] are a customer is violating their usage agreement with the ISP.

>We can try to design a system that's robust with respect to attacks like
>this, but in practice the best way to address this problem is to prevent
>it happening on a regular basis to people who will care about it.

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:58:27 +0000

I do not think the issue here is privacy or lack of interest in the same.
It is ensuring capacity is managed appropriately.  Further, allocating
static blocks to everyone has an entirely different set of impacts that go
much deeper in the network beyond the home.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:37 AM
To: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>, Michael Richardson

>>>renumbering my prefix
>> It's probably also worth mentioning that in general ISPs that do this
>>on a regular basis are attacking their customer's network, and the
>>resulting instability is not the result of a failing on our part, but
>>deliberate action on the part of the ISP.
>> 
>> There are countries where ISPs are required by law to _offer_ a change
>>of address every 24 hours for privacy purposes.   At least in the cases
>>I'm aware of, ISPs don't _force_ this on their customers, but rather
>>it's a configuration option paranoid customers can choose, which may
>>default to on.    This is an inconvenience to ISPs, because it causes
>>address pool churn, and requires a lot of extra bits to be allocated to
>>PE devices to accommodate all the deprecated addresses.
>> 
>>server.   Either the ISP succeeds, or fails, but in either case, they
>>are acting directly against the customer's wishes.    We can try to
>>design a system that's robust with respect to attacks like this, but in
>>practice the best way to address this problem is to prevent it happening
>>on a regular basis to people who will care about it.
>

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:03:23 -0800

> [jjmb] are a customer is violating their usage agreement with the ISP.

Is there any way this working group can make a statement that my washing machine,
home cameras, DVR, hot tub, thermostat, and light sockets, etc, etc, etc are
not TOS-worth scofflaws, and that ISP should come up with some 21st century way of
describing abusive behaviour for their customers rather than relying on detection of
the heinous crime of listen(2)?

Mike

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:03:42 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:41 AM
To: John Jason Brzozowski <[email-masked]>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>, Michael Richardson
<[email-masked]>, Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>, Dave Taht
<[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked] Group" <[email-masked]>, David Lamparter
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

>>> giving and withdrawing prefixes due to renumbering. I'm dubious that
>>>this
>>> has happened
>centric. 
[jjmb] I disagree it counts, sorry.  When you say client centric you mean
clients accessing the Internet not accessing the home from the Internet?

>I seriously want globally accessible servers on my home network to be
>1st class citizens and that implies naming and security/admission control.
>The future is now: a Raspberry Pi is $35. Tomorrow, we'll be getting
>gratuitous IP-enabled

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:06:07 +0000

Mark you can always reach out to me.  I can help make sure the correct
technical requirements are outlined.  I also have been working closely on
BnB so there may be some overlap we can help avoid.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:24 AM
To: John Jason Brzozowski <[email-masked]>
Cc: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>, Michael Richardson
<[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked] Group" <[email-masked]>, David Lamparter
<[email-masked]>, Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

>But... the chairs can only make the request. Allocating IETF space is
>something only the ADs are authorized to do. In Atlanta,  I asked for
>space and was turned down (citing too short notice, specs not mature
>enough, etc.). IPSO graciously gave us some squatting room, but we were
>not able to get what we needed from the IETF NOC in that particular
>location. So, while good work was done, it came with support headaches
>(e.g., ISP uplinks were simulated via tunnels sourced from a router than
>joined the IETF network like any other wireless host).
>
>I think that's a necessity. The request I sent in January to the list
>included: "Note that this isn't for 'showcasing', but for working... so
>be expected to configure, reconfigure, and change code on the fly
>accordingly." I think that is very important, and in order for that to
>happen, we need more than a couple of hours here or there.
>
>John B, Dave T, are the two of you the right folks for us to work offline
>with in order to try and put together the right ask?
>
>Thanks,
>
>- Mark
>
>
>> 
>>>>>> Even without DHCPv6 PD on the remainder of the IETF network, it
>>>>>>might
>>>>> be

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:31:40 -0500

> much deeper in the network beyond the home.

To be clear, what I was talking about is a policy of deliberately renumbering the customer in the absence of any operational need to do so, other than a misguided attempt to enforce a contract clause that some might describe as unconscionable.   I happen to know that your company doesn't do any such thing, because I'm a customer, but I have heard of small ISPs doing this sort of thing with IPv4.

I think the IPv6 architecture is quite robust in the face of such behavior, certainly in comparison to IPv4.   But the point is that if this sort of behavior on the part of the ISP introduces some hiccups in the performance of the homenet, this is par for the course.

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:56:08 +0000

Also for ISP that have this "problem" called growth activities of this
type (renumbering) may be required to ensure capacity is properly managed
which in turn is essential to a proper customer experience.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wuyts Carl <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:51 AM
To: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>, Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Cc: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Mark Townsley
<[email-masked]>, Dave Taht <[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko
<[email-masked]>, John Jason Brzozowski
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] Group"
<[email-masked]>, David Lamparter <[email-masked]>, Lorenzo Colitti
<[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

>Cc: Michael Richardson; Mark Townsley; Dave Taht; Jari Arkko; Brzozowski,
>John; [email-masked] Group; David Lamparter; Lorenzo Colitti
>acting directly against the customer's wishes.    We can try to design a
>system that's robust with respect to attacks like this, but in practice
>the best way to address this problem is to prevent it happening on a
>regular basis to people who will care about it.

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:20:34 +0000

Thanks for the clarification Ted.  I recall this being looked at as a
standard practice ~10 years ago even for larger providers, however, the
challenges associated with the same out weighed any perceived benefits.  I
do not hear much about this sort of thing these days.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Saturday, February 23, 2013 5:31 PM
To: John Jason Brzozowski <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked] Group" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando

>On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:58 PM, "Brzozowski, John"
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>To be clear, what I was talking about is a policy of deliberately
>renumbering the customer in the absence of any operational need to do so,
>other than a misguided attempt to enforce a contract clause that some
>might describe as unconscionable.   I happen to know that your company
>doesn't do any such thing, because I'm a customer, but I have heard of
>small ISPs doing this sort of thing with IPv4.
>
>I think the IPv6 architecture is quite robust in the face of such
>behavior, certainly in comparison to IPv4.   But the point is that if
>this sort of behavior on the part of the ISP introduces some hiccups in
>the performance of the homenet, this is par for the course.
>

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 09:43:48 -0500

>do not hear much about this sort of thing these days.

Agreed.  Renumbering for large deployments like the one I am familiar with
are related to the necessity to manage the network, growth and other
access network related dynamics.

This is an expensive exercise, and I would venture to say most operators
would only do it based on necessity.

Although we don't like it, some amount of renumbering will occur (hard to
same how much just yet given there are some differences with IPv6 vs. IPv4
related to addressing).

Regards,

Victor K

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:21:50 +1100

> the heinous crime of listen(2)?

Actually ISP's that renumber their customers regularly are performing
a DoS on their customers which actually may be illegal rather than
just a contract violation as they are deliberately breaking existing
connections.  I've seen software updates take longer than a hour
to download.  They also can't in good faith be said to be delivering
the Internet.  They generally have to break protocol default behaviors
and write specialised servers to get this broken behaviour.  There
is a expectation that when you renew a lease that you will get the
same address unless it is a exceptional circumstance.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 23:29:12 +0000

Misguided.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:21 PM
To: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Cc: John Jason Brzozowski <[email-masked]>, Michael
Richardson <[email-masked]>, Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>,
Dave Taht <[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>, Ted
Lemon <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] Group" <[email-masked]>,
David Lamparter <[email-masked]>, Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Servers in the home are not a crime

>> Is there any way this working group can make a statement that my
>>washing mach
>> ine,
>> not TOS-worth scofflaws, and that ISP should come up with some 21st
>>century w
>> ay of
>> describing abusive behaviour for their customers rather than relying on
>>detec
>> tion of