Re: [homenet] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-05
Minor issues: Rationale: support for wireless transit links is a "killer feature" of Homenet, something that is requested by our users and easy to explain to our bosses. In the absence of dynamically SB> Not sure explicability to your boss counts for much as a basis for SB> a feature an international standard. I think this paragraph is helpful for implementors -- it helps people explain to their bosses why we're bothering with link-quality estimation when we've done routing protocols with no link-quality estimation for the last fifty years or so. (The Fuzzball LSI-11 router had link-quality estimation, but that was in the 1980s.) Still, if you find the tone too informal, I'm open to reformulating. I too think the rationale is important but the phrasing may be confusing. Being a native speaker of U.S. English (and almost fluent in Southern Californiaese ;-) I found the colloquialisms confusing. Perhaps I could suggest something in the vein of "very important" or "much desired feature" etc for "killer". I found the term "bosses" leaving much to interpretation and would prefer to see something more like "management" or "decision maker", or perhaps even "Corporate" used instead. Jeff Bowden ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Moving forward.
100% agree with Dino - nothing beats extensive use in real networks and consecutive bug fixing. at least you could skip teething... Regards, Jeff On Jul 25, 2015, at 7:10 AM, Dino Farinacci farina...@gmail.com wrote: Someone needs to put the foot down and choose. Either you choose IETF process as a tie-breaker, in which case ISIS is the obvious choice, or you choose some other tie-breaker and then it might be another choice or no choice. Then I’ll be the foot if anyone cares. My 2 cents. You can ignore this email if you want to. I have implemented at least once the following protocols dating back to 1985, EGP, ISO-IGRP, OSPF, IS-IS, mBGP, EIGRP (twice), IGMP (twice), MLD, PIM (twice), MSDP (twice) and LISP (twice). So I am speaking from experience. Go with IS-IS. You will not regret it. I implemented IS-IS from the early beginnings of Ross Callon’s RFC 1095, first for Decnet Phase IV and then for Decnet Phase V (OSI). Then we added IPv4 and next IPv6. It has standed the test of time. It can do it for another generation. IS-IS is inherently self discovery, you don’t need to start it with any network address configuration (for any address family including layer-2, if the homenet needs multi-hop layer-2) and more importantly it is self-documenting. Dino ___ 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
Re: [homenet] Thoughts about routing - trends
Curtis, At about same time you were moving/re-wiring your new house, I've started to use Ethernet over power and have been using it since then :) Regards, Jeff -Original Message- From: homenet-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Villamizar Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 19:29 To: Russ White Cc: homenet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] Thoughts about routing - trends In message 4e957f43.1060...@riw.us Russ White writes: You are absolutely right that pulling cable is hard and expensive. Pulling cable is indeed hard and expensive. In my experience, it is the right thing for some applications, such as TV and my home office. Personally, I have both wired and wireless throughout the house; my personal rule is that I use the shared wireless network for activities that move around, to provide convenience at the expense of consistency and bandwidth, and wired for things that stand still, to provide stable bandwidth at the price of a one-time wiring effort. I do the same --I pull cable for televisions, and even for locations where a desktop or laptop is going to be sitting on a regular basis. So I think we should expect wired and wireless as the norm, rather than expecting wireless all the time. While I wouldn't want to rule OLSRv2 completely out, I think it should compete head to head with an extended OSPF and an extended IS-IS, or even other efforts afoot. I'd rather see requirements first, and a good solid evaluation of what's available against those requirements, rather than choosing technologies out of the gate. :-) Russ Russ, At various jobs I pulled 10base2 coax, then 10base5 coax, then twisted pair. [Well someone pulled it, but not me.] Anyone remember vampire taps in 10base2? What a reliability headache! I pulled 10base5 coax at home before I pulled twisted pair and before trying the early DEC Wavlan stuff that preceeded WiFi (again, at home). Too bad I moved and had to pull wire again (but I like the result). Back on topic: I do think we should consider OSPF (not so keen on ISIS, but OK) and should not rule out OLSRv2 or other LLN related work and MANET work (though I'm far from an expert on LLN or MANET). We will have to extend OSPF to make zero config possible. The extensions should be completely backwards compatible if at all possible. Curtis ___ 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
