Re: Time to kill layer 2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 








On 4/14/16, 8:59 AM, "ietf on behalf of Phillip Hallam-Baker" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>This morning I spent an hour debugging the network to print out two
>class projects that were due. Some points:
>
>1) My ability to debug the network is better than 99% of the population
>2) The interaction of Bonjour, DHCP and auto power saving is unfortunate
>3) Things should still work after I have been away for a week
>4) If vendors want to be selling all that IoT gear, they have to solve
>these issues.
>
>5) I want someone to blame. Right now when the network doesn't work, I
>don't know who is the cause. I want one point of contact. Whoever is
>that point of contact will get most of my networking money.
>
>
>One of the biggest headaches in debugging is that 'smart hubs' are
>not. They are actually very stupid. They make assumptions of network
>topology that are not true. Another is the unfortunate implementation
>of DHCP.
>
>I don't use SNMP for a simple reason - it is not available to most
>ordinary people. I want to understand networking for the 99%, not the
>IETF 1%-ers.
>
>All this networking gear is presented to me as black boxes over which
>I have absolutely no control (which is fine-ish) and no visibility.

What visibility do you want? Error messages on the printer's console?
Syslog messages?
SNMP traps? Oh, apparently not, since "SNMP isn't available most ordinary people."

>
>It seems to me that there is a business opportunity for any vendor who
>takes the rather obvious step of simplifying the system.

If a vendor tries to solve the problem, they'll just add more intelligence, which will neither simplify nor stabilize the system.

>
>
>What should have happened many moons ago was that DHCP should have
>become a bidirectional protocol or a bootstrap to a bidirectional
>protocol. So when a printer joins the network, it authenticates and
>tells the network what it is. And this is all defined in one set of
>specifications from one organization, none of which assumes that
>security is an 'advanced', 'optional' or 'enterprise' feature.

See Homenet.

Lee




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]