Re: [iot-wg] IoT BCOP TF Document - Call for comments
Hi Eliot, I´m refering to the Stacked Router concept, so one CPE instead of two (stacked) In this case, the CPE Best regards, Eric van Uden AVM ICT GmbH Country Manager Netherlands Mr. van Coothlaan 10 6602 GT Wijchen Nederland Phone +31 24 6485381 Mobile +31 622 948356 e.vanuden@avm.de Bezoek onze website op http://nl.avm.de/ , vind ons leuk op Facebook of bekijk onze Google +-pagina en Youtube-kanaal. AVM GmbH for International Communication Technology, Alt-Moabit 95, 10559 Berlin, Germany HRB 48220 AG Charlottenburg, CEO (Geschäftsführer): Johannes Nill Von: "Eliot Lear" <lear@ofcourseimright.com> An: e.vanuden@avm.de, "sandoche Balakrichenan" <sandoche.balakrichenan@afnic.fr> Kopie: iot-wg@ripe.net Datum: 26-10-2020 14:21 Betreff: Re: [iot-wg] IoT BCOP TF Document - Call for comments Hi Eric, On 26.10.20 14:18, Eric van Uden via iot-wg wrote: For me this means that IoT security should be implemented in as little as possible devices connection the consumer to the internet - one device if at all possible thus avoiding stacked router scenarios that add unnecessary complexity and possibly even more IoT security issues. Precisely which device would you expect that to be: The CPE or the IOT device? Eliot
Hi Eric, On 26.10.20 14:33, Eric van Uden via iot-wg wrote:
Hi Eliot,
I´m refering to the Stacked Router concept, so one CPE instead of two (stacked) In this case, the CPE
Thanks. It is better for a single provider to interface with the user. Stacked CPE should certainly not be required, but nor should it be prohibited. If I don't like the pizza box my provider gives me, I might want to put something in front of it. In that case, the maker of that something might take responsibility for communicating with me about what is going on in my network. This has an impact as to whether or not everything can be done in, say, TR.369. Does this make sense? Eliot
Hi Eliot, I have to confess, at the moment I have no experience with TR369. I am glad that I understand TR69 a little. ;-) What I do know about TR369 is that it is a good basis to keep a better eye on things in the future and to make decisions based on the information from the CPE. Best regards, Eric van Uden AVM ICT GmbH Country Manager Netherlands Mr. van Coothlaan 10 6602 GT Wijchen Nederland Phone +31 24 6485381 Mobile +31 622 948356 e.vanuden@avm.de Bezoek onze website op http://nl.avm.de/ , vind ons leuk op Facebook of bekijk onze Google +-pagina en Youtube-kanaal. AVM GmbH for International Communication Technology, Alt-Moabit 95, 10559 Berlin, Germany HRB 48220 AG Charlottenburg, CEO (Geschäftsführer): Johannes Nill Von: "Eliot Lear" <lear@lear.ch> An: e.vanuden@avm.de Kopie: iot-wg@ripe.net Datum: 26-10-2020 16:08 Betreff: Re: [iot-wg] IoT BCOP TF Document - Call for comments Hi Eric, On 26.10.20 14:33, Eric van Uden via iot-wg wrote: Hi Eliot, I´m refering to the Stacked Router concept, so one CPE instead of two (stacked) In this case, the CPE Thanks. It is better for a single provider to interface with the user. Stacked CPE should certainly not be required, but nor should it be prohibited. If I don't like the pizza box my provider gives me, I might want to put something in front of it. In that case, the maker of that something might take responsibility for communicating with me about what is going on in my network. This has an impact as to whether or not everything can be done in, say, TR.369. Does this make sense? Eliot
Hi Eric, besides the more modern protocol design (TR-369 uses the same latest TR-181 datamodel on the CPE like TR-069) the major difference is that TR-369 allows several „controllers“ with different levels of access while TR-069 only knows one „controller“ - the ACS. Because of this design it’s possible that i.e. a smartphone app the customer uses acts as one possible controller for a TR-369 enabled CPE. - Peter
Am 26.10.2020 um 16:34 schrieb Eric van Uden via iot-wg <iot-wg@ripe.net>:
Hi Eliot,
I have to confess, at the moment I have no experience with TR369. I am glad that I understand TR69 a little. ;-) What I do know about TR369 is that it is a good basis to keep a better eye on things in the future and to make decisions based on the information from the CPE.
Best regards,
Eric van Uden
AVM ICT GmbH Country Manager Netherlands Mr. van Coothlaan 10 6602 GT Wijchen Nederland Phone +31 24 6485381 Mobile +31 622 948356 e.vanuden@avm.de
Bezoek onze website op http://nl.avm.de/ <http://nl.avm.de/> , vind ons leuk op Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/fritzboxnederlands> of bekijk onze Google +-pagina <https://plus.google.com/115631098113092982023/videos> en Youtube-kanaal. <https://www.youtube.com/user/fritzboxnederlands>
AVM GmbH for International Communication Technology, Alt-Moabit 95, 10559 Berlin, Germany HRB 48220 AG Charlottenburg, CEO (Geschäftsführer): Johannes Nill
Von: "Eliot Lear" <lear@lear.ch> An: e.vanuden@avm.de Kopie: iot-wg@ripe.net Datum: 26-10-2020 16:08 Betreff: Re: [iot-wg] IoT BCOP TF Document - Call for comments
Hi Eric, On 26.10.20 14:33, Eric van Uden via iot-wg wrote: Hi Eliot,
I´m refering to the Stacked Router concept, so one CPE instead of two (stacked) In this case, the CPE
Thanks. It is better for a single provider to interface with the user. Stacked CPE should certainly not be required, but nor should it be prohibited. If I don't like the pizza box my provider gives me, I might want to put something in front of it. In that case, the maker of that something might take responsibility for communicating with me about what is going on in my network. This has an impact as to whether or not everything can be done in, say, TR.369. Does this make sense? Eliot
_______________________________________________ iot-wg mailing list iot-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
Peter Steinhäuser, CEO embeDD GmbH · Alter Postplatz 2 · 6370 Stans · Switzerland Phone: +41 (41) 784 95 85 · Fax: +41 (41) 784 95 64
participants (3)
-
e.vanuden＠avm.de -
Eliot Lear -
Peter Steinhäuser