Subject: RE: (multi6) requirements draft comments

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:47:20 -0800

> To conclude, let me repeat a few ideas that I have read in other
documents
> that some of you might be familiar with:
> - The market does not like revolutions; the Internet has historically
> evolved with incremental changes.
> - What we decide in this workgroup is one thing, what the market does
is
> quite another.
> - End-to-end connectivity is important.
> - An imperfect solution is better than no solution.

Nobody wants to throw away the existing solution, which is to inject a
global route for a few multi-homed sites. However, this solution clearly
has limits. Today, about 30% of the homes who have 1 PC also have a
second one; is it absurd to think that tomorrow 30% of the homes who
have DSL will also have a cable modem? What happens when 30% of home
networks are multi-homed?

I believe that we will see multiple solutions, and I would categorize
these solutions in two large classes: the solutions that require the
cooperation of the network service providers, and the solutions that
don't. My contention is that a mass market solution should not require
any action from the ISP.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "Craig A. Huegen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:15:18 -0600

> networks are multi-homed?

While I agree with your sentiment, I believe there are multiple classes that
must be considered.  I don't believe that a user should be able to inject
global prefixes from a cable modem and a DSL line at home; however, I do
believe there's room for global prefixes to be injected by large,
multi-national enterprises as end-users.  I ask for caution within this
community not to condemn a solution that may be right for the very large
end-users because of a fear someone might want to apply it to home networks --
they're vastly different beasts.

> don't. My contention is that a mass market solution should not require

I would probably organize them a bit differently, based upon the
characteristics of the multi-homed downstream/end-user networks.

/cah

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 20:21:08 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Craig" == Craig A Huegen <[email-masked]> writes:
    Craig> While I agree with your sentiment, I believe there are multiple
    Craig> classes that must be considered.  I don't believe that a user
    Craig> should be able to inject global prefixes from a cable modem and a
    Craig> DSL line at home; however, I do believe there's room for global
    Craig> prefixes to be injected by large, multi-national enterprises as
    Craig> end-users.  I ask for caution within this community not to condemn
    Craig> a solution that may be right for the very large end-users because
    Craig> of a fear someone might want to apply it to home networks --
    Craig> they're vastly different beasts.

  I believe that there are three solution spaces:
    1) large multi-national entreprise solutions.
       (if you have geographically relevant addressing, either via
       geo-PI, or via national governments doing all assignments. Perhaps
       not a reality in the "free markets", but possibly true for other
       less free areas, but also places like Antartica, the Moon, Mars...)
       
       This is more or less the BGP solution space.

    2) network layer solutions.
       mobile-IP like systems.
         Some people believe that this requires some kind of global PKI 
	 on the reverse name space. (note: PKI = PK infrastructure, which
	 maybe PK+DNSSEC. It may not imply x509/pkix)

       opportunistic-encryption-like-tunnel systems.
	 Given the above global PKI, you can assign PI addresses to everyone
	 which are *not* routed. You can then advertise how to get to these
	 places by putting stuff into DNS reverse map. 
		(see draft-richardson-ipsec-opportunistic-03.txt)
         This is no different than the mobile-IP system, it just never tries
	 to optomize anything.

       HIP-like systems- a variation of the above where IP addresess 
		become meaningless, and hashes of public keys terminate
		connections.

    3) transport layer solutions.
       Just use SCTP for everything with PA addressing.

  None of these solutions are even exclusive. I can see all three systems
occuring at the same time.	      

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [