I was going to stay quiet on this issue, but what the heck…I’ve been following
this on the sidelines for long enough to think I have an opinion (without
having a stake in this).
My immediate impulse, from following all this from the peanut gallery, is that:
1/ It is required that HOMENET provides the protocols necessary
for
the “homenet specific” (configuration, …) stuff — prefix
assignment,
DNCP, HNCP seem to be doing that.
2/ It is required that the “homenet specific” stuff is routing
protocol
agnostic, and specifies an interface to the routing protocol
(for example
“thou shalt support src-dest routing”), which also seems to be
the case.
3/ It is fine that HOMENET is doing due diligence and verifying
that/if
IETF sanctioned routing protocols exist that satisfy the
requirements
— it seems that that’s the case, in no small part due to the
many
implementations and demos we’ve seen (which is awesome), from
commercial vendors (awesome), open-source guys (awesome, also),
and commercial-vendors-doing-open-source (which is awesome,
too).
4/ I am not so sure that HOMENET (or the IETF) wins by staging a
beauty contest among routing protocols, to “pick the most
beautiful”,
and then mandate that as:
“THE ONE TRUE HOMENET ROUTING PROTOCOL”.
It seems that the collateral damage from this is non-trivial,
in terms of
time expanded on precisely not getting anywhere on this issue,
arguing
instead of progressing.
5/ That brings me to the point of this email …
Figuring out “what goes in the box sold to consumers”, is that
really an
IETF issue? The IETF provides the standardized building blocks,
following
a large consensus process — then an industry alliance runs off,
with the
actual stakeholders as members, and figure out which from among
those
building blocks to use, and how to put them together (ZigbeeIP
comes
to mind, as a recent example of such, and that because I am
replying to
Robert here … )
IMO, homenet is doing fairly well on 1, 2, and 3.
It seems that when trying to do 5, nuclear meltdown ensures. Maybe that’s just
an indication that 5 is, indeed, better done in a different context? I seem to
recall that it *used* to be “let the market figure out which XXX it wants”, for
whatever value of XXX — why would this have to be any different?
Best,
Thomas
PS: Yes, those who know me will know that I would likely have actual routing
protocol preferences. I’m not a stakeholder in this work, so I’m keeping those
preferences to myself.
PS2: And yes, precisely as I am not a stakeholder in this, you’re free to
ignore me — or to consider this a slightly more outside view (your call).
> On Jul 28, 2015, at 11:36, Robert Cragie <robert.cra...@gridmerge.com> wrote:
>
> +1 - well said. If it weren't actually a serious issue, I would find the
> constant bickering in homenet re. routing protocol quite comical. I come from
> the other end of the spectrum (LLNs) and was put off a while ago with the
> general disdain for catering for anything "the light switch guys" (as we were
> called, I believe) would like to have in a homenet, As a result, we ended up
> as a "stub network".
>
> I don't have a horse in the race but I have to agree with the general
> sentiment that it makes sense to pick a single routing protocol which was
> actually designed to cater for all types of links. Shoehorning this
> capability into an existing protocol may be possible but I completely agree
> with what Ted says - this now becomes effectively a new routing protocol and
> a research project.
>
> Robert
>
> On 28 July 2015 at 09:38, Gert Doering <g...@space.net
> <mailto:g...@space.net>> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 10:55:52PM +0000, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> > Thanks. Seeing other replies, I also hear a requirement (d) have
> > plug-and-play routing, and (e) support MIF. I think plug-and-play is a
> > work in progress until routing is decided. I would break down the problem
> > by using Babel on the wifi links and IS-IS on the wired link - what do
> > folks think?
>
> This is a totally idiotic idea.
>
> Sorry to be so blunt, but there is NOTHING to be gained by insisting on
> "we must use IS-IS somewhere! we'll look long and hard to find a niche
> where it works, and hammer it in there!".
>
> Running two different routing protocols in the *homenet* means "totally
> not understanding what homenet is about". This is not a managed environment,
> with Big Name Router Vendors and Big Brains Routing Code Guys creating
> products, but *HOME*. With CPE vendors involved.
>
> 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%2989%2F32356-444>
> USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
