On 16.2.2015, at 17.16, Margaret Wasserman margaret...@gmail.com wrote:
You have mentioned that Babel is in OpenWRT or something along those lines…
Is the version with source-specific routing included in OpenWRT yet? If
not, what is the process by which that will be included in an OpenWRT
On 16.2.2015, at 17.57, Markus Stenberg markus.stenb...@iki.fi wrote:
If you use that wide ‘operational’ definition, almost any routing daemon ever
written (minus AutoISIS perhaps) is in (for some definition) wide operational
use.
Very few people write them just for fun and never use them.
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 04:07:38PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Out of interest: how is ISIS done on Linuxish devices? Grabbing
ISIS packets off the link with libpcap?
The Erlang version uses a PF_PACKET, SOCK_RAW socket.
The alpha Quagga version appears to have three
Out of interest: how is ISIS done on Linuxish devices? Grabbing ISIS
packets off the link with libpcap?
The Erlang version uses a PF_PACKET, SOCK_RAW socket.
The alpha Quagga version appears to have three implementations:
- on Linux, it uses a PF_PACKET, SOCK_DGRAM socket;
I was aware
Thanks, Juliusz. This was very helpful to me in understanding the status of
these implementations.
Margaret
On Feb 16, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
You keep mentioning that Quagga is alpha quality but i am not sure that
provides any pertinent
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
ISIS can provide topology and get brought up before HNCP has even come up,
and can provide topology.
Just like IS-IS, Babel can establish adjacencies and start routing IPv6
before it gets an address, and doesn't need to reconverge when IPv6
On 16 Feb 2015, at 12:44, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
If you know of any reasonably complete open source implementations of
IS-IS other than the Erlang implementation and the (alpha quality) Quagga
implementation, please let me know (perhaps by private mail), so
HNCP contains the same thing as a link-state protocol to find out
topology. HNCP could theoretically use the ISIS topology instead of its
own, but it couldn't rely on Babel to do the same job, right?
Correct.
-- Juliusz
___
homenet mailing list
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Steven Barth wrote:
I think it would be equally interesting to see a specification of that
homenet-variant/subset of IS-IS. The comparison draft is very vague on
that front and judging by some on-list and off-list discussions there
seems to be a lack of consensus for at
Just the fact that you need src/dst routing means most current
mid/higher end hardware won't work at all (or will require significant
microcode update to work).
I'd like to point out that one of the conclusions of the work of Matthieu
is that source-specific routing can be easily implemented
If ISIS is chosen, I am sure we'll see additional implementations of this
in C or similar programming language. I know some rudimentary
implementations in Python as well, that people wrote in very little time.
The Python implementation I'm aware of is not just rudimentary, it's not
done (as in
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
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 16 Feb 2015, at 12:44, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
If you know of any reasonably complete open source implementations of
IS-IS other than the Erlang implementation and the (alpha quality) Quagga
implementation, please
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
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:31:53PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
My point was not to say that there were other ISIS implementations (I
would have said so earlier if that was the case), but that you can write
ISIS in basically any language (including Erlang and Pyton), so the
comment
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Steven Barth wrote:
For IS-IS the comparison draft points me to RFC 1142 which seems to be
the obsoleted OSI-standard and then straight to the auto-conf and
source-specific drafts which doesn't really help (at least me) very
much.
Ok, understood. I will investigate.
I think it would be equally interesting to see a specification of that
homenet-variant/subset of IS-IS. The comparison draft is very vague on
that front
You mean what the TLVs look like exactly for the src/dst extensions to
ISIS?
No, I don't think that's what Steve means.
Sections 12 and
You mean what the TLVs look like exactly for the src/dst extensions to
ISIS?
Well not all too specific. I want to read or at least scan through the
specifications that tell me how this homenet-variant of IS-IS would look
like, i.e. what drafts / RFCs or chapters of these are relevant and
For Babel I can read: RFC 6126 and draft-boutier-babel-source-specific
about 50-60 pages and that seems to be it.
What's the equivalent of that for the homenet IS-IS variant?
Check. In the meantime, could we get confirmation that your above that
seems to be it assumption is true for babel?
Hi Juliusz,
On 16 Feb 2015, at 12:44, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
If you know of any reasonably complete open source implementations of
IS-IS other than the Erlang implementation and the (alpha quality) Quagga
implementation, please let me know (perhaps by
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,
26 matches
Mail list logo
