Mikael Abrahamsson <mailto:[email protected]>
5 August 2015 08:50
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.
I'm not arguing against IS IS. But I think the IS IS proponents have
singularly failed to clearly express what is proposed for Homenet.
To my mind that has now been largely corrected with
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lamparter-homenet-isis-profile-00
Although there are an awful lot of current ID drafts in the "must
implement" list.
And there are still gaps e.g. How to set metrics. How to handle security.
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?
This thread.
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?
Ted's mail of Sat, 25 Jul 2015 21:07:43 -0400
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'm not talking about cables. I've run serious IS IS backbone networks
(together with MPLS). I know what IS IS can do in that sort of
environment. It's a great protocol.
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?
The Internet is also going wireless.
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.
Because Babel seems to do what IS IS can, plus more. If that's not the
case, then I'd like to see how IS IS can run in lossy and mesh networks.
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.
I guess this is a "show me" moment.
Where can I download the code to test on Openwrt?
regards,
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
