On 28 Jul 2015, at 21:21, Gert Doering <g...@space.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:55:16AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: >> This means that the end user can be assumed to plug home routers together >> in arbitrary topologies, [..] >> >> Our goal is for this to work in a multihomed IPv6 environment. > > Just to repeat myself from yesterday :-) - OpenWRT with HNCP and Babels > achieved this nicely enough 15+ months ago. Yes, it had some rough > edges, but it *worked*.
And maybe a year before that there was working code for OSPF (with multiple implementations based on at least Bird and Quagga) which had working code for homenet routing, including automatic prefix configuration and src/dst routing. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If homenet had decided to separate out the configuration from the routing at an earlier point, we’d certainly have been where we are now rather sooner. The OSPF implementations allowed us to see quite clearly that the separation of configuration was desirable (as much as Markus was increasingly creative with new TLVs!), so that experience while arguably ‘lost’ time was something we learnt from. Part of the homenet journey. Personally, I like where we are with Babel and HNCP now. Many of the same people, esp. Markus and Dave, who prototyped previous work, have been awesome in repeating their efforts for HNCP & Babel, and that’s great. It was a shame to see many open source developers feeling frustrated at Prague. I hope they do continue their efforts. We would not be where we are now in homenet without them. The HNCP work should now be able to be completed independently of the routing protocol chosen, and if the Babel side meeting from Prague leads to wider understanding of Babel, and its standards status being elevated, that would be great. Tim _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
