Fred,
Thanks for the excellent summary!
I'm in the camp that believes we do need an automatic routing mechanism. Maybe
it is because I'm in the 5% percentile, maybe it is because I believe we'll see
more guest/private and non-bridgeable subnets. (At the end of the day, I think
an open Internet model for all devices will win, and we may be able to get rid
of guest/private. But at the same time I think we need an answer on how to do
current network models in IPv6 when the IPv4 answer is adding another NAT. If
we do not have an answer, a copy of the IPv4 network model will emerge for
IPv6.)
In any case, I think the choice of a routing mechanism is a practical question.
What can we realistically expect devices to do. Your data points to RIP, but
one significant point from yesterday's discussions was that it might be easier
to do internal network prefix assignment in general topologies with a link
state routing mechanism. I still worry that we try to optimize too much or aim
too high with our expectations of functionality. Perhaps something simpler
would work for prefix assignment and we could just do what most devices already
have in their code, i.e., RIP. The IETF is often in a danger of inventing new
solutions as we are protocol engineers, and then failing to get the new stuff
deployed. But I also like OSPF a lot, and I think it would be a very elegant
solution. I'm going to see if I can put it into my network, with some prefix
assignment solution.
I would like to see a recommendation for one protocol though. Something that we
would expect most home routers to support in the future. I think that
recommendation needs to be for a general purpose routing protocol that we have
years and years of experience with.
(We'll of course see some additional things in many networks, too. One topic that has been raised often is LLN and ad hoc routing protocols. These can naturally be accommodated where needed, as the current models in RPL, for instance, call for a border router that can do the necessary per-packet encap and speak RPL. Such a border router should also be a homenet router and be capable of participating in the routing and prefix allocation tasks with the rest of the home network. But I think it would be a mistake to adopt one of the ad hoc network protocols as the basic protocol to run in all home networks. Speaking personally, I would at least like to stick with more traditional solutions and skip the special encap and other things that may come with other designs. For the record, I'm probably as sensor networked as you can be, but I do not use ad hoc routing protocols because I happen to do all my sensor networking with link types -- WLAN, wired, cellular -- that do not call
for anything special. I know there are other types of situations, but wanted to provide an example of LLN networking that runs in a more traditional architecture.)
Question: Yesterday we talked a little bit about what it means for the routing
to be turned on automatically. Prefix assignment based on your delegation from
the ISP is one part of it. What else do we need? Is this just a matter of
making our home router devices have OSPF on by default, and as soon as the
device gets its prefix it will start advertising it in the routing protocol?
Jari
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
