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

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

> 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.

First and foremost it is a "choice" we should permit.  I personally
think bridges were a bad idea for networks back in the late 80's, and I
don't believe extended LANs are acceptable, being inherently evil
wearing my network computer scientist hat.  That being said, in a home
you have one subnet in the basement, one in the 1st level, and then one
in next level of the home.  Each with its own applications for that
subnet for personal and household appliances. If I want to access other
floors one can, but over a router, and one does not want to see the
traffic for many reasons on the other subnets.  In SOHO this can be a
clear division of work like the Dentist Office.  The Dentist work is
using machinery and robotics on one subnet, and the office admin is
doing accounting on another subnet, and common applications are running
in the closet of the office in a server accessible to both, and where
ingress/egress end points are to the public Internet.  Each of these
networks do not want others on their subnet and it could be for security
reasons too.  Admin at front office hates patient that comes in and
turns up the speed on the Dentist's drill when the patient begins
treatment :---)

As far as discussion.  I asked the chairs the question.  Until they tell
us to stop discussion I intend to respond.  Respectfully to that
question.

> 
> 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.

If that logic is true then the entire spec should move to zeroconf.  I
think that is not a good idea.

Regards,
/jim