On Tue, 4 Aug 2015, Ray Hunter wrote:
As someone who spent rather a lot of time wordsmithing Section 3.5 of RFC7368
into something that could reach rough consensus, I find this discussion
rather depressing. Section 3.5 was the list of requirements we could agree on
when the architecture document shipped. I've been on record as being
agnosting in the choice of routing protocol, and hope(d) the DT would deliver
us from stalemate, so I remained silent.
We have been trying to address all objections to ISIS by addressing the
few things that were not already there. Yet, people keep arguing.
Now I see a lot of super-heavyweight industry names seemingly failing to grok
Homenet in general, and specifically the use case of WIFI as a home backbone.
What makes you say this, especially in light of what was presented at the
last IETF?
But if we go for IS IS we're apparently going to have to wait (perhaps
forever) to get L3 routing over WIFI working/ stable. Something that we've
pointedly failed to do in professionally managed office networks in the last
20 years.
Again, what makes you say this?
I keep hearing that babel is loop free and that this is a great feature.
My take on that is that it's a great feature when wifi just sucks and keep
going bad and keeps going away and coming back, and you're happy if a few
packets are delivered once every now and then. When I say this, Juliuz
says I am silly.
I make sure my wifi works 99.9% or more of the time. Unless it always
works, it's useless to me. I don't see why isis+wifi-backbone couldn't be
used in my home (not that I will do that, but if I would).
So again, with basic features like setting the metric depending on
interface speed and type (which has been around for 15-20 years for
routing protocols in all kinds of places), what is it that babel would
actually give us in a decently working homenet with wifi backbone?
ISIS will handle just fine when people unplug and plug cables back in.
Field engineers have been doing this (badly) forever, ever since people
started doing computer networking.
I will yield that babel is better in a mesh network where all bets are
off, but is that really the kind of network we expect people to have? The
Internet is moving towards supporting real time communication that must
always work. Yet, I keep hearing that this isn't the homenet we're
expecting to have? Or what am I missing?
On the flip side I don't see barriers to Babel running on small cabled
networks.
I keep hearing this. As far as I know, nobody has ever said babel wouldn't
run on cabled networks. I don't see why this point is repeated, nobody is
arguing with this point.
In short: I largely agree with Ted, but I see the WIFI backbone use case
as a killer differentiator for Homenet (regardless of the final choice
of routing protocol). If IS IS can't deliver on that, then it's a real
miss.
It can.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
