Subject: Re: [homenet] homenet: what now? ... next?

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:40:28 -0400

Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > (5) it's fine stuff, but IMO not going to be used, so
    > there's not much point in producing RFCs
    
    > (6) not sure at the moment,
    > maybe the WG should go quiescent for a while 'till we know more

After having various homenet threads in my inbox for 6 weeks, I've been
through them, and through Ted's marketing requirements draft.

My feeling is (6), until we are sure about (5).
Your list is unclear what "it" is, I think it might naming, but it might be
bigger.  I think that we should wait a bit longer.

My take is that wifi-roaming across a big house problem has been solved in
proprietary spaces for those that have this problem, and they are unlikely to
replace their solution with the WiFi easyMesh one.  easyMesh may show up
openWRT thanks to prpl, and it might become ubiquitously available available,
just in time to not be used, because the last thing anyone wants from a
home network security point of view is every IoT device on the same L2.

There is significant effort to isolate IoT devices on seperate L2s via
what in the enterprise switch space is called MAC-based-VLANs.  The only
devices that "move" in such a network are the laptops and mobile phones, and
both could easily take on a variety of mechanisms including things like
off-link /128s. 

I joined HOMENET (and spent personal money attending the first interim
meeting in PHL) because I saw HOMENET as an attempt to get rid of the stupid
L2 tricks that IPv4 scarcity forced people into.   I recognize the often
futility of trying to lead industry with specifications. In the homenet
case, I thought a few major vendors were committed, but I was wrong.

I think that perhaps the naming work could move to DNSSD WG if closing down
the WG was important.  At least if we had one WG then there potential
scheduling conflict would reduced.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:52:44 +0100

Thanks Michael,

More such input is very welcome! As chairs we'll try ask
again in a bit, but it'll be the same questions basically
so answering now is just as good:-)

On 23/04/2019 22:40, Michael Richardson wrote:
> the WG was important.

Two things on that: a) I'd not thought about moving work
to dnssd, will check it out a bit though, (I believe I may
know one of the chairs:-) and b) closing the WG isn't a
goal, it's just an option, if that's what WG participants
(or the lack thereof) indicate is the right thing.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:09:13 -0400

Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > what in the enterprise switch space is called MAC-based-VLANs.  The
    > only devices that "move" in such a network are the laptops and mobile
    > phones, and both could easily take on a variety of mechanisms including
    > things like off-link /128s.

let me clarify two things:

1) the other (IoT) devices could "roam" between access points, but they don't,
   because they are attached to walls, etc.

2) none of the mDNS naming that a flat L2 enables will work because of the firewalling,
   so they need the naming issues fixed in the way that Ted is doing, and
   once that's fixed there is no reason for them to need a flat L2.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-