On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Also, currently most routers consists of mostly L2 high speed forwarding,
with some L3 thrown in between two ports (the WAN port, and the 5th
internal port to the 5 port switch chip with 4 external ports). With
homenet, all this changes. Now all
On Feb 19, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
Really? Then you and me have fundamental difference in opinion what
topologies we want to see in homenet. I want to see fewer broadcast domains.
If we're going to keep the large L2 domains, then we don't really need
On Feb 19, 2015, at 12:33 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
Sure, ISIS could be made smarter when it comes to this, but it all comes down
to what the requirements are. Right now when we started to evaluate routing
protocols, people started pitching USP for their perticular
It means that every single device on a wired network is on a different
subnet. Perhaps it doesn't cause any extreme harm, but it certainly makes
managing and debugging the network harder, and it means that you can't have
a layer two switch anymore. So the question I would ask is not is
On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
If we're going to be routing multicast within the home, we're most likely
going to have to use some kind of variant of PIM. Asking the L2 switches
people connect to the router to support both PIM and MLD snooping seem
On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
If 802.11 is so bad for multicast, do we even want to run IPv6 over it?
This would be a great objection to using 802.11 for host networks, but it's a
lousy argument against using 802.11 for transit networks!
I know Dave T
I am not convinced by this; one of the issues I see here is that until DNSSD
comes up with a solution, we are breaking service discovery on the home network
by doing this. Granted, we already do that from Wifi to wired, but this seems
gratuitous.
There is draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-00 for
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
My employer has millions of subscribers using IPv4 multicast TV channels
currently.
How's that getting through the NAT?
IGMP proxy in the HGW.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Ted Lemon wrote:
I don't think the architecture document says anything about this. It's
how CeroWRT currently operates by default. I find it to be a royal
pain, and in fact that's why I run OpenWRT and not CeroWRT.
I'd imagine it's easier to do AQM on routed ports
On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
If I can extrapolate and oversimplify a bit, now we've gotten to a
fundamental problem: how does a random collection of devices, links and ports
sort itself by DWIM into a coherent home network? How does a device with 16
On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
My employer has millions of subscribers using IPv4 multicast TV channels
currently.
How's that getting through the NAT?
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Steven Barth cy...@openwrt.org wrote:
There is draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-00 for which we have specified glued to HNCP
and a reference implementation. I think DNSSD is actually mostly covered or
are you referring to any specific issue of that solution?
Hm, I will
On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:45 PM 2/19/15, Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
If I can extrapolate and oversimplify a bit, now we've gotten to a
fundamental problem: how does a random collection of devices, links and
ports
On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
But I think one of the important points for homenet is that many people will
just buy internet devices, not routers and switches. I've been out of the
loop so I should go back and check the architecture before I say too
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Ralph Droms wrote:
But I think one of the important points for homenet is that many people
will just buy internet devices, not routers and switches. I've been
out of the loop so I should go back and check the architecture before I
say too much more ... what is the
On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
I would like my router-to-router links to not have a lot of hosts in them if
I can avoid it.
Why is that?
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
I would like my router-to-router links to not have a lot of hosts in them if I
can avoid it.
Why is that?
If we're going to be routing multicast within the home, we're most likely
Wasn’t thinking Quantum Networking would pop up this way…
The “marginal link” can’t simply be measurable packet loss.
There are L2 networks, wired/wireless that can have measurable packet loss
“as properly designed”.
Not good, and you could avoid it, but it is expected behavior.
Reasonable sized
On Feb 19, 2015, at 1:18 PM 2/19/15, Ole Troan otr...@employees.org wrote:
It means that every single device on a wired network is on a different
subnet. Perhaps it doesn't cause any extreme harm, but it certainly makes
managing and debugging the network harder, and it means that you
Op 19 feb. 2015, om 19:18 heeft Ole Troan otr...@employees.org het volgende
geschreven:
It means that every single device on a wired network is on a different
subnet. Perhaps it doesn't cause any extreme harm, but it certainly makes
managing and debugging the network harder, and it
It means that every single device on a wired network is on a different
subnet. Perhaps it doesn't cause any extreme harm, but it certainly makes
managing and debugging the network harder, and it means that you can't
have a layer two switch anymore. So the question I would ask is not is
Op 19 feb. 2015, om 21:25 heeft Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr het volgende geschreven:
If people want to choose babel because it works well facing adverse radio
conditions in a mesh-networking environment (that I know nothing about),
I think this is misrepresenting
Op 19 feb. 2015, om 22:27 heeft Ole Troan otr...@employees.org het volgende
geschreven:
It means that every single device on a wired network is on a different
subnet. Perhaps it doesn't cause any extreme harm, but it certainly
makes managing and debugging the network harder, and it
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I would note that RFC 7368 says that simple Layer 3 topologies involving as
few subnets as possible are preferred in home networks. I presume this is
reflective of WG agreement.
While it does go on to note that multiple subnets are sometimes needed,
Basically a device has been sold with a certain amount of features, and
this featureset hasn't changed over time, thus there is no need to
future-proof. I see this changing.
What are the indicators you see ?
I suspect that the two of you may be making different assumptions. Mikael
is
I was not proposing to use the HNCP TLVs for routing. Actually, I
wasn't proposing to change the internal use of TLV movement much at
all in HNCP, I was proposing to move them to IS-IS and use that to
synchronize them instead of using the current transport. I do not see
the fundamental
Actually one might even argue in the opposite direction that unless the
IGP offers some fancy dynamic metrics based on e.g. bandwidth or
reliablity etc., what would be the point of combining HNCP with
a single-area LSP if you might as well do a simple graph traversal on the
HNCP topology to
I'm possibly missing something, but I see no requirement to perform L3
routing between the LAN ports.
Really? Then you and me have fundamental difference in opinion what
topologies we want to see in homenet. I want to see fewer broadcast
domains.
Ah, I see.
I was focusing on avoiding
Babel solves this particular issue by a combination of three mechanisms:
(1) automatically assigning a high metric to a marginal link, (2) using
How is a marginal link defined/detected?
The current implementation uses ETX (MobiCom 2003), which is not very good
but relatively easy to implement
smart rate limiting.
ISIS already has these kinds of rate-limiting of how things are
happening. In modern core routers this is often tuned
If you need to tune it, it's not smart enough.
-- Juliusz
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
smart rate limiting.
ISIS already has these kinds of rate-limiting of how things are
happening. In modern core routers this is often tuned
If you need to tune it, it's not smart enough.
Can babel achieve 200ms convergence times across a
It's been what, 1.5-2 years since then? We've already noted that HNCP looks
awfully close to a link state protocol and duplicates quite a lot of of
functionality.
Right. It is essentially bit more modern take on a link state routing
protocol. So if you bring it up, I bring up the
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Babel solves this particular issue by a combination of three mechanisms:
(1) automatically assigning a high metric to a marginal link, (2) using
How is a marginal link defined/detected?
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
The Commission for Truth in Advertising requests that I mention that we
haven't evaluated HNCP's behaviour in unstable and marginal networks yet.
I agree, however this would need to be adressed anyway and irregardless
of the chosen IGP that runs alongside it. I mean the IGP working but
HNCP
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Ted Lemon wrote:
So you are, I assume, advocating that all in-home switches also have one
subnet per port? I have a 16-port switch, and will probably have to add
another, so that's going to consume a lot of prefixes.
Yes. I don't see the problem with this.
--
Mikael
Trying to understand the ³marginal link² definition as well:
Seems like ³marginal link² is associated with the IGP behavior (static,
DV, link state)
I¹m assuming:
If the L2 domain signals to the IGP that the link is ³down², the link is
down. Even if it does it a lot. You need to ³hide² it from
Seems like ³marginal link² is associated with the IGP behavior
No. A marginal link is simply one that has a measurable amount of packet
loss.
On a properly functioning wired network, you don't have any marginal
links: a link is either up or down, and a link that is up has negligible
amount of
On Feb 19, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
Yes. I don't see the problem with this.
It means that every single device on a wired network is on a different subnet.
Perhaps it doesn't cause any extreme harm, but it certainly makes managing and
debugging the network
On Feb 19, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
I don't know if this is true or not. I know ISIS was running on Cisco 2500
routers (which are motorola 68030 at 20MHz. I've had these kinds of devices
involved in the single level ISIS domain for a fairly large network
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl wrote:
Hi Ted,
Op 19 feb. 2015, om 19:49 heeft Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com het volgende
geschreven:
I don't know. Homenet multicast is an open issue. But I don't think this
use case represents a serious problem,
Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
What Mikael is saying is that on homenet devices (not switches) each
port is treated as a separate network, on the assumption that all of
the physical ports on the homenet device are likely to connect to
routers, and that any switched
On 02/18/2015 03:22 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
I wanted to note that I embrace and endorse Juliusz´s and Markus´s
comments
on this thread, and most of the rest of the discussion seems pretty
sensible.
Some random comments:
* I miss the days when rip was ubiquitous. When you needed a routing
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015, Michael Thomas wrote:
But we're not talking about an interpreted language in the forwarding
plane, right? Is the load from routing protocols we're talking about
likely to have any noticeable effect on the the forwarding rate? even
when you're running hot on the routing
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015, Dave Taht wrote:
* While ram and flash have grown to be essentially free I really dont
see home router and cpe makers rushing to embrace slower languages or
bigger flash and memory requirements anytime soon.
That's because there has been no requirement to do so, most of
create blackholes; IS-IS will collapse during reconvergence;
Collapse?
Okay. I'll reformulate that.
I am not aware of any results in the open litterature that describe the
behaviour of single-area IS-IS during reconvergence.
I am not aware of any results in the open litterature that
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
create blackholes; IS-IS will collapse during reconvergence;
Collapse?
Okay. I'll reformulate that.
I am not aware of any results in the open litterature that describe the
behaviour of
Mark Townsley wrote:
Dear WG,
In Hawaii, Margaret offered to pull together a document providing a
summary of ISIS and Babel within the context of homenet. Working with
Chris Hopps and Juliusz Chroboczek, Margaret just posted
draft-mrw-homenet-rtg-comparison-01.txt. Many thanks to all 3
I also think there should also be more explicit links back into the
Homenet Architecture document
[...]
Perhaps a table with complies does not comply or partially complies
per paragraph or phrase?
Good point. Here's a quick reading of Section 3.5 of RFC 7368:
- border discovery: out of
On 2/18/15, 9:19 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
I also think there should also be more explicit links back into the
Homenet Architecture document
[...]
Perhaps a table with complies does not comply or partially
complies
per paragraph or phrase?
Good point.
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
create blackholes; IS-IS will collapse during reconvergence;
Collapse?
- LLNs and other non-transit networks: a tiny stub implementation of
Babel is available. It is not known whether a small stub-only
implementation of IS-IS is
I wanted to note that I embrace and endorse Juliusz´s and Markus´s comments
on this thread, and most of the rest of the discussion seems pretty
sensible.
Some random comments:
* I miss the days when rip was ubiquitous. When you needed a routing
protocol, you
generally *really* needed one, and
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Markus Stenberg wrote:
Do you consider ISPs more or less cost conscious than the home users?
And yes, I know some ISPs have deployed it at some point, and the non-GL
was definitely non-enthusiast product at some point as it transitioned
from Linux to VxWorks while chasing
If you allow a clueless question here by someone who hasen't tracked the
details of this space too much:
If I am thinking longer term, I would like to see simple L2 switches in
the home be replaced with homenet switches. Or lets say at least I would
like to make sure that the homenet/OSS work
On 16.2.2015, at 12.10, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
The major hurdle for any existing vendor is NOT the routing protocol, but
the support for source specific routing. For those using Linux, it is
relatively cheap = adding support for RP with it is not bad. If using old
Linux,
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Markus Stenberg wrote:
The extension is also backported even to 2.6.32 stable series
(.6something), and also all other currently active stable trees. If a
router vendor is using Linux but not basing on stable tree, it is their
problem ;)
Well, considering the push-back
On 16.2.2015, at 12.50, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
For an amusing anecdote of 12 years of home router progress, look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_WRT54G_series .. both ram and flash
have decreased. (TL;DR: 16-8, 4-2MB respectively)
Was WRT54G ever a device an ISP
On 15.2.2015, at 20.33, Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net wrote:
In Hawaii, Margaret offered to pull together a document providing a summary
of ISIS and Babel within the context of homenet. Working with Chris Hopps and
Juliusz Chroboczek, Margaret just posted
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 09:02:44PM +0100, Steven Barth wrote:
Somewhat related: is source-specific routing in general deployed
anywhere in the enterprise (or similar) space already?
Not in the way homenet/babels tackle this.
Enterprise/ISP space does VRF and per-VRF routing tables, and
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Markus Stenberg wrote:
The major hurdle for any existing vendor is NOT the routing protocol,
but the support for source specific routing. For those using Linux, it
is relatively cheap = adding support for RP with it is not bad. If
using old Linux, or something crippled,
Dear WG,
In Hawaii, Margaret offered to pull together a document providing a summary
of ISIS and Babel within the context of homenet. Working with Chris Hopps
and Juliusz Chroboczek, Margaret just posted
draft-mrw-homenet-rtg-comparison-01.txt. Many thanks to all 3 authors for
this input, I'm
Thanks for writing up the document.
As a general comment:
I think it should be added that there is a huge difference in building
enterprise routers and home routers in terms of budgets for development
/ support and margins.
This should somehow reflect in the complexity of the specifications
Working with Chris Hopps and Juliusz Chroboczek, Margaret just posted
draft-mrw-homenet-rtg-comparison-01.txt.
This is on
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mrw-homenet-rtg-comparison
As Mark mentioned, we didn't attempt to reach consensus with this
document -- we tried to produce
wrt. Algorithm Comparison
Loop-Avoiding Distance Vector [...] scales badly in extremely dense
deployments, where a single node has thousands of direct neighbours
Are thousands of direct neighbors relevant for the homenet usecase?
It's not relevant to any reasonable use case. There is no
On Feb 15, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
More generally, I think -01 puts undue stress on scaling and convergence
speed. Sections 3 and 4 can be summarised as any reasonable routing
protocol scales sufficiently well and converges sufficiently fast
The sections in the document started from a list of routing
features/properties that were discussed in the WG meeting. There was
quite a bit of discussion of scaling. In particular, there was a lot of
discussion of how these protocols will scale on Wi-Fi.
Performance and scaling on WiFi is
101 - 165 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
