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

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

Christian,

Excellent point.  No way can we do unmanaged with multiple subnets.

Kills it for me.  Move the draft to IESG review Margaret is my input
before someone else opens another can of worms or pandaora's box.  We
must learn to ship our work expediently and quickly around here.  The
uman team has done the work, we have discussed it,  it is a well written
draft, and if the IESG in their infinite wisdom makes this PS any warts
can be fixed after PS.

Thanks Christian I thought it was correct but in the discussion I missed
the obvious and thanks for pointing that out to me indirectly.
/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Huitema [mailto:huitema@windows.microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:01 PM
> To: Bound, Jim; Ronald van der Pol
> Cc: Pekka Savola; Margaret Wasserman; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-00.txt
> 
> 
> > 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
> > > 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.
> 
> Jim,
> 
> There is no question that there may be a technical interest 
> in having multiple subnets in a home network. However, there 
> is also no question that we cannot provide "unmanaged 
> multi-subnet networks" with today's technology. This is 
> pretty much what settled the issue in the discussion
> group: multi-subnet networks, today, are managed. The UPNP 
> architecture committee came pretty much to the same 
> conclusion: structured networks in the home may be desirable, 
> but are not practical today; bridges provide a reasonable alternative.
> 
> Not that I like this state of affairs. In fact, Dave Thaler 
> and I submitted a draft to the IPv6 WG that addresses the 
> issue (draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets-00.txt). I believe 
> we need something like that in practice, as we are finding 
> practical deployment of "cascaded NATs" in some home networks 
> today, and that really breaks a number of applications.
> 
> But, well, this was the group's consensus.
> 
> -- Christian Huitema
> 
>