Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:17:16PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote: > >> On Sat, 31 May 2014, Gert Doering wrote: > >> > >>> So I'd keep the list of supported protocols as small as possible - and > >>> stick to IP protocols. ISIS is great for ISP environments, but does not > >>> nicely adapt to a unix environment where the kernel has no idea about > >>> ISO/OSI protocols and you have to do everything via raw sockets. Which > >>> would be a fairly typical environment for a CPE router. [..] > > I could be wrong, but I don't think that was the point. There are also layer > 2 protocols to consider.
I quoted my original comment above. This is the context we're talking
about: protocols to be considered for routing inside the homenet.
In *homenet*.
> Expecting everything to be handled at IP transport layer 3 will confront
> extremely difficult security issues.
>
> Testing using a modern printer/scanner illustrated a major problem when
> devices were not restricted to link-local. Something like RBridge supporting
> PPP would provide a much safer foundation upon which to build.
>
> All networks must begin with layer 2 starting points. Selective routing
> between Rbridges would allow an ability to share data between HDCP enforced
> multi-media display devices using link-local addresses. There will be video
> cameras, baby monitors, HVAC/SCADA controls, printers and scanners offering
> media stick access, etc. These devices were never intended to directly
> interface with the Internet. These devices MUST NOT be assigned routable
> IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. Using mDNS proxy into DNS would be setting the stage
> for major security disasters.
While this is all true, I cannot see how this related to what I said
above, and to the question of "is ISIS better suited as a link-state
protocol to transport opaque LSAs than OSPFv3?" - because *both* do that
job without "assigned routable IPv4 or IPv6 addresses" - ISIS talks over
L2 (or potentially IPv6 link-local as was mentioned), OSPFv3 talks over
IPv6 link-local.
This thread wasn't about questioning the whole homenet architecture, but
about a specific side aspect: would additional routing protocols be considered
a plus. And I say "no", out of general reasoning, and because I consider
the particular protocol to be not very well suited for typical SoHo router
implementations.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
pgpDugsyscixy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
