On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Ray Hunter wrote:
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.
Well, I am still of the opinion that ISIS would work well without
modifications for Wifi that works as intended. It's also been that when I
have questioned why people would have crappy wifi (which is seems to be
one of babels major design goals to handle), I have been told I am being
silly and that's not what's being said. It's been quite confusing.
Also, the homenet architecture document doesn't state that the routing
protocol must handle the kind of adverse conditions some people in here
seem to take for granted:
3.3.3. Handling Varying Link Technologies
Homenets tend to grow organically over many years, and a homenet will
typically be built over link-layer technologies from different
generations. Current homenets typically use links ranging from 1
Mbit/s up to 1 Gbit/s -- a throughput discrepancy of three orders of
magnitude. We expect this discrepancy to widen further as both high-
speed and low-power technologies are deployed.
Homenet protocols should be designed to deal well with
interconnecting links of very different throughputs. In particular,
flows local to a link should not be flooded throughout the homenet,
even when sent over multicast, and, whenever possible, the homenet
protocols should be able to choose the faster links and avoid the
slower ones.
Links (particularly wireless links) may also have limited numbers of
transmit opportunities (txops), and there is a clear trend driven by
both power and downward compatibility constraints toward aggregation
of packets into these limited txops while increasing throughput.
Transmit opportunities may be a system's scarcest resource and,
therefore, also strongly limit actual throughput available.
So claiming some did not "grok homenet" seems to me rather that we have
had different opinions on what a homenet is/was, but as this has
progressed we seem to have come closer to actually being in agreement on
what it is and what the requirements are.
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.
Babel does some of what ISIS does. ISIS does some of what babel does.
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?
Just to be sure again, what are the requirements for "wifi backbone use
case"? Minimal use of multicast? Metric set so cable is prefered over
wifi? Or also that it checks regularily if packets can be delivered and
change metric?
So while I know babel has been "battle proven" for this, I still don't
know if we have an agreed set of requirements here. Just the same way as I
have seen ISIS as the obvious choice here because of <factors> that for me
is obvious and was never written down, it seems to me that this is another
place where this is obvious to babel proponents what is required, and this
was never written down either.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
