Re: [homenet] biggest L2 domain
Hi, On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 09:54:08AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: > I thought that we wrote somewhere in RFC7368 that the Homenet router should > collect as many ports as possible together into a single L2 zone. > I can't find that text right now. Did it go away? > > In testing, we have found a device that does not put it's 5-"LAN" ports into > a bridge. That's probably a missing configuration, but in the meantime, we > have an interesting HNCP and naming setup! My understanding of "homenet" and "HNCP" devices has always been "every single hole in the box is a routed port". Now that's my understanding and not necessarily written down somewhere. Magically grouping ports into a common L2 network and then un-grouping them in case one of them turns out to have another HNCP device connected sounds like an interesting challenge, to say the least :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 04:05:39PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2019, at 3:39 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > Is that not a bug?
> The problem is, how???d the packet get so big that it was fragmented?
If you have a discontinuous L2 MTU, you do not need fragmented packets
to see packets disappear.
Host A has an ethernet MTU of 1500. Sends a packet with 1400 bytes, no
fragmentation needed.
Somewhere in between is an ethernet bridge that only handles 1350 payload
("L2TPv3 with an outer max packet size capped to something too small to
transport 1518 byte packets inside, and not doing outer fragmentation")
Packet gone.
No fragmentation of any sort involved, just incorrectly set up L2 segments.
(Rule #1 for real world operation: ensure that end system L3 MTU is
always <= the smallest L2 MTU that the packet might encounter in your
L2 fabric)
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation vs. DynDNS
Hi, On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:50:50PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Juliusz Chroboczek writes: > > > Exporting names from the Homenet into the global namespace, on the > > other hand, should be done by the hosts, with no involvement of any > > third party (neither the ISP nor the Homenet itself). This is where I > > argue for some form of end-to-end, secured, dynamic DNS update. > > Why? What is wrong with the owner of the network selecting which devices > / services he/she wants globally reachable without each device/service > having to implement (and be configured for) an external naming provider? This is homenet. There is nobody here who manages the network. Which seems to be the main difference in views here - "I have a middlebox where I can do configuration" vs. "the network is not managed, if I want something to happen, I do it on the host". Looking at my parents' setup, things like "teamviewer" work because they do not need configuration on their router. It has its own namespace, registers the host, and it can be found (due to IPv4 NAT, it needs to also use a rendezvous server, but that might hopefully go away one day). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
Hi, On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 03:53:32PM -0700, james woodyatt wrote: > The protocols we are developing here in HOMENET are for the tiny > minority of people who prefer to build their own home networks instead In that case, we're wasting effort. "The tiny minority" can just take an OpenWRT box, install what they need on it, and run it whichever way they want it. No need for HNCP, these folks can install and configure OSPF or ISIS if they want that, set up real DNS zones, etc. The beauty of the HOMENET suite is "plug together a number of boxes from different ISPs and vendors and it automatically leads to a nice multihomed and network robust against failure or mis-plugging of cables". "The tiny minority" does not need that, the large majority does. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
Hi, On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:32:44AM -0700, james woodyatt wrote: > Accordingly, I strongly recommend that HOMENET dispense with the "My > Friendly ISP" model with extreme prejudice, and adopt what I shall call > the "HOMENET Castle Doctrine" as a matter of working group policy. I claim that this is a sure way to kill homenet from being ever deployed. "Normal" People just don't buy a second router for their ISP link if they already have one, or a 3rd and 4th one if they happen to have two ISP links. So, what do we think a future home network for normal people is going to look like? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] support for HNCP in IPv6 CE routers
Hi, On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:12:30AM -0700, james woodyatt wrote: > I think it would be better if you leave aside all mention of > HOMENET protocols from the RFC 7084-bis draft. That document is > mainly intended for first-mile internet service providers, and I > think the less the have to say about how residential networks operate > behind the demarcation point at the edge of their networks, the > better for everyone. This would give HOMENET optimal freedom to > write standards for interoperability of devices intended for home > networks without having to get mired in the tar pit of dealing with > first-mile internet service provider stuff. I find the model of "there is a CPE, and behind that CPE, I connect another router to get homenet functionality" a bit unsatisfactory. Is that what you're saying how home Internet connections should look like? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA
Hi, On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:49:54PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > It's never for that purpose. It's to combine to normal connections so as to > increase reliability. The scenario you just described would require a > wormhole with one end in the 1990s. 1990s never had uplinks that fast *and* unreliable at the same time as many of today's consumer ISPs offer. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Please review security considerations of draft-homenet-babel-profile
Hi, On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 03:38:15PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote: > The TTL hack is used in ND. Because ND uses GUAs (which it should have never done in the first place). > It strikes me as really bad for security to come > up with a different mechanism to achieve the same result for no other reason > than that you for some reason didn't like that trick. Relying on "it must be a link local src and link local dst" sounds much more sane than "we permit arbitrary packets to reach us from the outside and then worry about criteria to ignore them afterwards". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Please review security considerations of draft-homenet-babel-profile
Hi, On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:47:01AM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote: > Historically, a popular brand of router would forward packets with LL source. "Historically"? Has this been fixed? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Firewall hole punching [was: About Ted's naming architecture...]
Hi, On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 03:49:30PM +, Tim Chown wrote: > That said, given HOMENET's charter to be the ideal network we always wanted > without the technical debt, i suggest HOMENET take a strong stance and reject > "crunchy core, soft middle" security approach. Meaning, assuming that some > other device is going to do security for you and you can leave a default > password telnet open that idea needs to die. This. +1. And some. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] "Installing Homenet" guide (was: hnet-full & LEDE bug report)
Hi, On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:28:09PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > - you can extend your wireless range by just connecting an extra router. >As the network expands, the routers will automatically compute the best >paths and route packets accordingly; [..] > The Commission for Truth in Advertising requires me to mention that the > last feature is not quite ready yet -- with current software, when one > provider goes down, you might need to manually disable the router that's > connected to that provider. The Commission for Truth in Advertising also remarks that the "just expand your wireless range by hooking up additional routers" is not working very nicely with (wifi-)roaming clients yet, as the clients today seem to have funny ideas about TCP sessions and new v6 addresses when changing AP... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Routing Design Team outcome and next steps
Hi, On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:07:44AM +, Ray Bellis wrote: > Based on the feedback received in Prague and on the WG mailing list > thereafter, we are therefore declaring rough consensus that Babel[*] > shall be the ???mandatory to implement??? routing protocol for Homenet > routers, albeit only on an Experimental basis at this time. Thanks for making a decision. This was needed so people can go out and build this stuff into off-the-shelf ware. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] ISIS wifi testing
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 02:38:40PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> It's very frustrating
> that by default there are no loopback addresses for the routers that are
> the addresses used for DNS entries. Also, in current implementation there
> is no stickyness for addresses on interfaces, if it goes down, it'll come
> back up again with new prefix.
I assume that this is just an implementation issue - and in that case,
would indeed second Mikael's complaints :-) - having a sticky address
on the router to talk to, no matter which interface happens to be up or
down just now, and have interfaces that keep their subnet for the
"easy" things ("user unplugs and replugs his laptop") that do not
require persistant storage would certainly be appreciated.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes
Hi, On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:03:47PM -0700, joel jaeggli wrote: > >> And that's a well-known issue that the IETF needs to finally tackle: > >> source-address failover. > > So long as you don't invoke the prospect of either extremely expnesive > overlay networks, or globably route scalability go right ahead those are > both in play already. > > Hosts in in absence of state as turns out are rather good at > instantaneous renumbering. e.g. as they roam between networks it > remains a mystery to me that networks containy hosts are less able to > cope. I may be in fact that that they are not less able to cope. No, that wasn't what I was talking about. Not "I get a new source address and need to cope it", but "I have two source addresses with global scope, tried one according to source-selection rules, it did not work, so I should maybe try the other one now?" No network dynamics of any kind involved, just "a normal homenet multi-ISP scenario" (with some breakage "somewhere upstream", not something the host can easily see) - I thought that this would have been obvious from the thread and WG list context. The advertised IETF solution for "(SoHo) multihoming" is "multiple global IPv6 addresses", but this does not work yet as well as it could, partly due to this missing piece. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpx6teaSxGkl.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes
Hi, On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:16:28PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > And that's a well-known issue that the IETF needs to finally tackle: > > source-address failover. > > We did - it's called shim6. The trouble is that we can't deploy it > because of stupid firewalls blocking the necessary extension headers. And that it solves a different problem. But otherwise, yes, shim6 would have been nice to see... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpXzqbgvABJo.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Reachability of distributed prefixes
Hi, On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:07:50PM +0200, Henning Rogge wrote: > > Short-term reachability indications are sent to hosts in a reactive manner, > > using ICMP unreachables. If any applications are unable to do the right > > thing with ICMP unreachables, we should fix the applications. > > I am not aware of any application doing anything more than "try to > open the connection again". > > How do you propose the application to react? Most applications leave > the source-IP selection to the operation system... > > does any OS currently change the preference order of IPv6 source > prefixes when it gets ICMP unreachable messages? And that's a well-known issue that the IETF needs to finally tackle: source-address failover. This is way bigger than just homenet-related, as it will basically affect every host that has multiple equally-scoped IPv6 addresses where one of them has intermittent failures. Hosts need to learn to cope - the failure could be in the ISP1 network, so there is nothing HNCP could do inside the homenet to signal "uh, btw, do not use prefix1 for connections to ISP_Z, it's broken right now" (first, it does not know the scope, second, it has no mechanism to tell). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] HNCP: avoiding renumbering
Hi, On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 11:57:07PM -0700, Toerless Eckert wrote: > I don't know why Juliusz called stable storage bad. I'd assume it has to do with flash write cycles on $30 routers... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Moving forward.
Hi, On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 02:30:58PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Gert Doering wrote: > > > To me, the main reason seems to be that a very vocal minority insists > > that it absolutely *has* to be IS-IS... > > Yes, it's a lot easier to reach agreement on one solution if people with > differing opinion shut up and go away. So true. > Are you seriously saying that people who are saying it *has* to be babel > isn't a very vocal minority as well? I see a number of people working hard on drafts and code, and demonstrating that Babels gets the job done. And I see a few people insisting on IS-IS, no matter what collateral damage they do. YMMV, of course. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpuOpL1tMUQG.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Moving forward.
Hi, On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 02:19:51PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > We don't have agreement on what homenet should be, what it looks like, > what the requirements are, how it's implemented, and what's important over > time. That's why we can't come to agreement on what routing protocol to > choose. To me, the main reason seems to be that a very vocal minority insists that it absolutely *has* to be IS-IS... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpng_BOByZty.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Moving forward.
Hi, On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 08:53:48AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > 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. You *are* being silly, because Babels design goal is not "handle crappy wifi well" but "handle *all* potential network topologies a homenet might encounter well, including crappy wifi". Which means it will totally work well if you do *not* have a crappy wifi link around. [..] > Babel does some of what ISIS does. ISIS does some of what babel does. What is it that Babel does *not* do that ISIS does (and that is relevant for a homenet scenario)? It perfectly well works on wired links. It might not work on an ISP backbone, and it does not do L2 (TRILL), and it does not do multi-topology, and it does not run over OSI protocol - but which of that is relevant for the homenet scenario? Nobody is doubting that ISIS is the more versatile protocol, has a more active working group, many more RFCs to document it, and so on - but what of this is *relevant* here? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Despair
Hi, On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 09:12:59AM -0700, Dino Farinacci wrote: > I vote for Babel. +1 Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Despair
Hi, On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 01:44:49PM +0200, Dave Taht wrote: > I would like to require the design team > > *to actually install the software*. But that would not be properly following procedures. This is the IETF, and we (they, I have totally lost interest, tbh) have working groups, design teams, requirement documents, comparison documents, *more* requirement documents, ad-hoc committees, and I think someone mentioned a flash task force. Pathetic indeed. But as long as IS-IS gets another number of RFCs out of this, no harm done, right? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] some IS-IS questions
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*. Then this working group started to go into full committee mode about "can we not use some other routing protocol instead, plese?" instead of working with and improving the existing stuff and getting the documents done and standardized... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Moving forward.
Hi, On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 10:55:52PM +, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > Thanks. Seeing other replies, I also hear a requirement (d) have > plug-and-play routing, and (e) support MIF. I think plug-and-play is a work > in progress until routing is decided. I would break down the problem by > using Babel on the wifi links and IS-IS on the wired link - what do folks > think? This is a totally idiotic idea. Sorry to be so blunt, but there is NOTHING to be gained by insisting on "we must use IS-IS somewhere! we'll look long and hard to find a niche where it works, and hammer it in there!". Running two different routing protocols in the *homenet* means "totally not understanding what homenet is about". This is not a managed environment, with Big Name Router Vendors and Big Brains Routing Code Guys creating products, but *HOME*. With CPE vendors involved. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpkbCDeTIUuJ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Moving forward.
Hi, On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:04:28PM +, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > Based on the requirements above, I would use ISIS for (a) and configure a > static route to the wifi link to deal with (b). "If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgp06enY_mTdc.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Moving forward.
Hi, On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 07:18:14PM +, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > What about forming a flash WG in routing area to see if: [..] I really wonder if this is is about "getting anywhere" any longer, or whether we should just form a few subcommittees that decide on task forces to establish temporary WGs to decide on the proper naming of some other working group drafts instead. I've done testing with babels-based openwrt HNCP implementation over a year ago(!), and while that code had warts, it actually worked well for my tests. Instead on just agreeing on "working code is good, let's write it up!" this working group is now even further away from actually agreeing on anything that could lead to a shipping product based on an actual *standard*... So, folks, what is that you *want*? "See your favourite routing protocol win, no matter what the cost" or "produce something that can be implemented by a chinese garage shop (... by taking one of the two existing and well- tested open source implementations, slapping a new label on it, and shipping it)"? Gert Doering -- Operator -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgplpEpdcukXX.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Moving forward.
Hi, On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 03:21:18PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > I have no knowledge that it won't, on the other hand I have more knowledge > about interoperating ISIS implementations and its 20+ years of exposure to > reality. And that will tell us exactly what about the newly written ISIS implementations that would be used in a homenet environment, written by vendors that have never even *seen* a backbone router in their life before...? What it *does* tell us is that ISIS is a mightily complex protocol that took 20+ years to get right for the *best* minds in the routing industry. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpYMUnEu_8z3.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Moving forward.
Hi, On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:06:14PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > I doubt we'll get consensus on the requirements for the routing protocol, > as the babel proponents seem to envision a homenet with really bad wifi > which needs a protocol such as babel to handle this problem, and others, > who see a more stable homenet which a linkstate protcol such as ISIS can > handle just fine. Well, that argument seems just a little bit biased. What's wrong with picking a routing protocol that will handle both unreliable homenet links *and* a perfectly stable topology, in preference to a protocol that you seem to imply wants a "stable environment"? Babels will work perfectly well on a totally loss-free wired topology. [..] > One group sees the homenet consisting of a bunch of "ad-hoc" wifi links > with dubious quality and working part of the time, another group sees the > homenet consisting of (fairly) reliable links that can be used for real > time communication and high speed communication that works "all the time". > These visions are not compatible, the requirements that fall out of these > visions are not compatible, and this is why we have this stale-mate. We seem to have one routing protocol that handle both variants without any drawbacks, and another one which seems to be only suited for one variant of homenet. Why is the decision difficult? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-06.txt
Hi, On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:48:43PM +0200, Pierre Pfister wrote: > Relaxing the « administrator » may be confusing, as Brian said. > So I guess the MUST could become a SHOULD, which imply it requires > implementers to fully understand the drawbacks > of using non-64 prefix lengths. For instance, /127 could be automatically > used (no need for administrator) if a link > is auto-detected as point-to-point. A MUST is perfectly right here. You can't have implementation A decide "let's use a /64 here" while implementation B goes for "/127"... The sentence is also clearly allowing alternatives: if I tell my router "hey, I want to use /127s on point-to-point links", this is "unless configured otherwise by an administrator", so the MUST is not getting in the way then. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Selecting a routing protocol for HOMENET
Hi, On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 01:27:27PM -0500, Markus Stenberg wrote: > Why are we trying to force exactly 1 routing protocol at any rate? I think while we could have any number of routing protocols in there, there MUST be one that will *always* be present, and is mandatory for a compliant implementation. Otherwise, we'll end up with incompatible subsets being implemented by different CPE vendors, and this is absolutely not acceptible for a homenet solution. Look at the mess that was made by vendors out of IPSEC - too many choices, too many knobs, nightmares to operators, totally impossible to use in cross-vendor scenarios for non-experts. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] routing protocol comparison document and hncp
Hi, On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 07:31:56AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: > Considering that provisioning personal certificates is the almost the > polar opposite of zeroconf, the chances > of the normal schlub seeing an informative and/or trustworthy name are > really, really low. You might want to entertain you reading draft-behringer-homenet-trust-bootstrap which gives a good idea how this could work (the general ideas, maybe not the specific implementation). Of course the normal end user is not going to ever look at or manually generate a certificate. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] routing protocol comparison document and hncp
Hi, On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:48:24PM -0500, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > The way IETF has normally done things is to allow multiple > developments to exist if they have support and then drop only those > that are not being deployed or prove to be less desirable. "Having multiple examples of running code" is certainly a good thing. "Discussing all potential approaches to death, unless the committee has won, and the result is an unimplementable nightmare of myriads of different options" is what IETF WGs have changed to in more recent years - and if I look at the last few rounds of discussions, I can certainly understand why Dave moved off to get something *done*. A: "here's a draft that got implemented, works, and needs feedback" "but I want ISIS!" "and I want OSPF!" goto A gert, tempted to call it a day and spend my time *deploying* IPv6 somewhere -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] routing protocol comparison document and hncp
Hi, On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:33:47AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used (with > proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were used as the > homenet protocol. If true should we be calling this out more explicitly in > the document? I'm sure we could, but "what is it that the WG wants?" - achieve something that vendors could deploy, in finite time - do another few rounds on protocols, variations, personal peeves, and end up with something like IPSEC? I'm firmly in the "do something that is good enough, and get it deployed" camp, which means "no, we don't do everything-on-top-of-ISIS". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] a modest plugfest proposal
Hi, On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 05:14:47PM -0800, Dave Taht wrote: > That sort of plugfest would get the known users of things like hnetd > up from 2 to at least 50, and I would hope that the increased > operational experience from the ensuing chaos twould be of benefit for > setting future directions of the wg. I very much like that idea. (Unfortunately, I won't be at the IETF meeting, but I am one of those few that have actually deployed hnetd/HNCP before :) so I claim sufficient experience) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] More about marginal links [was: Routing protocol comparison document]
Hi, On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:42:47PM -0800, Toerless Eckert wrote: > Q: Did i hear it correctly, there is no standard "show mac-address-table" like > CLI on linux/openwrt for built-in switches ? Right. Usually communication to these built-in switches is limited due to lack of documentation, lack of developer time, and so on - so if you get VLAN configuration and link status, it's already a win. > Q: Is there ANY code in linux that propagates L2 switch port status to the > attached > L3 interface ? Especially if i do have a 1:1 mapping ? In commercial products > that commonly done. Not that I know of. It does not really matter here, though - because you can't rely on the L2 link status to convey end-to-end sanity, as there can always be an intermediate L2 switch that links "to you" but lost the link on the other end... (and this is where ethernet OAM etc. comes into play in commercial implementations) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] A poll
Hi, On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 08:50:10AM -0800, Dave Taht wrote: > So a quick poll: > > 0) Have you managed to get ipv6 working at all? If so, how? What sort > of problems did you encounter? Yes, PPPoE/L2TP session to myself as ISP on the other end (so I cheated). > 1) Have you attempted to deploy a routing protocol in your home? Which > one, and why? Did some testing with HCNP/Babels, to see if it works. But the "production network" is plain flat L2 today. > 2) Have you attempted to get hnetd's prefix distribution system > working? (it supports linux mainline and openwrt presently) Yes, on OpenWRT. Worked. > 3) Do you use ethernet? How many clients in your home are ethernet connected? Yes, ~10-ish. > 4) Do you use wifi? How many clients are wifi connected? Do you use > range extenders? Yes, ~3-5, no. > 5) How many devices do you think you will have connected to the > network in your home in 5 years? How many now? "More" - I see some sensors coming up, and maybe some of these thingies people call "smart phones" even if they are neither smart nor very good phones. > 6) Do you use any other network connected technologies (homeplug, > 802.14, LTE, etc). If so, which ones, and why? No. > 7) Do you use mdns service discovery? Half of the devices are Apple built, so, yes. > 8) Why are you here? (especially, if your answers to 0-2, are "no") To complain about lack of useful source address selection (aka "prefix labeling so users can make an informed choice"), and frown about IETF committee behaviour. Or so. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document
Hi, On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 03:50:05PM +0100, Pierre Pfister wrote: > Last point is that the routing protocol we will agree on will not > be the last we?ll ever come-up with. Some other will be invented. > [..] And > maybe some day we will decide to move to another routing protocol > because we made a mistake or a new better routing protocol was > designed. We need to make sure that this transition will be possible. > And I think having an independent routing protocol running today > will make this transition easier. I disagree with the "it needs to be totally open, extendable, flexible" line of argument. Homenet is something that needs to be implemented by *home* CPE vendors, and interoperate between all those implementations. Having too much options will make it look like IPSEC. Nice standards, but to get two different implementations interoperate, you need a diploma in troubleshooting. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpYJ6X7ms9Fl.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document
Hi, On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:15:38AM +0200, Markus Stenberg wrote: > [ HNCP ] > > Right. It is essentially bit more modern take on a link state > routing protocol. So if you bring it up, I bring up the another > argument - why not route using it? Cost of doing _that_ is ~100 LoC > (+ whatever fancy thing we want to do with metrics). This is actually something I have been wondering about. Why not use HNCP to do all the work, when it's already nicely establishing a communication infrastructure? This decision happened before I joined this list... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpjOid7fxZkH.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document
Hi, On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 08:43:26AM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > We're talking about a protocol decision here. People seem to focus a lot > on the "running code" part here. ISIS is used for numerous things of apart > frmo the MPLS and Traffic engineering space, we also have IEEE 802.1aq > (SPB) and TRILL, it's also used in the GMPLS control plane. There are > probably 10-20+ commercial implementations of ISIS, if not perhaps the > exact TLVs we're talking about here. Most of not all of these standards > are described in standards track RFCs. > > Against this, we have Babel, which as far as I can tell has a single > implementation that has been forked into two, and is based on a few > experimental RFCs. Just to voice something from the opposite side of the spectrum - I'm a fan of "do one thing and do it well" approaches, and not so much of a "oh, we have a kitchen sink here, let's see if we can turn it into a living room table". So for me, the fact that ISIS is used for umpteen other things outside the homenet environment isn't exactly a plus side. Yes, it is understood that basic ISIS works (exchanging TLVs, establishing topology) - but if you look at it from an implementors point of view that does not have many years of ISIS background, just figuring out which parts of the heap of potential ISIS use cases they need to implement sounds much more time-consuming than just taking the Babels implementation and compiling it for the platform of choice... We're not talking about a routing protocol for every possible use case here - we're talking about a fairly well defined environment (aka "fairly small number of devices, IPv4 and IPv6 only, and implementations constrained by lack of clue on the manufacturer side"). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Implementations of IS-IS
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 implementations: > > - on Linux, it uses a PF_PACKET, SOCK_DGRAM socket; I was aware that you can use that to *send* raw frames, but didn't know you could use that to receive as well (done via joining the [ethernet] multicast groups). Interesting. thanks, Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpMzy16mNWqj.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Implementations of IS-IS [was: Routing protocol comparison document]
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 about ISIS needing L2 access (and that it isn't IP), isn't > something that seems to be a real issue in real life. Out of interest: how is ISIS done on "Linuxish" devices? Grabbing ISIS packets off the link with libpcap? This is one of the nice aspects of HNCP and Babel - "just use plain UDP over link-local v6", so no need to mess with packet capturing etc. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document
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 all that, or policy based routing with manual configuration. But not "we have a single routing protocol that transports (src,dest) routing info" - at least I've never seen anything in $C or $J land. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] sorting out the right ipv6 addr to choose and name in a source specific world
Hi, On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:18:47PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > If you have two hosts connected at different places to the same mesh > network, they could have very different performance characteristics while > having addresses from the same /64. Indeed, that's the other end of the diversity spectrum (vs. "all hosts in our /32 have roughly the same network characteristics"). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] sorting out the right ipv6 addr to choose and name in a source specific world
Hi, On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:48:50PM +, Markus Stenberg wrote: > >> be cached for a while and interpreted per-prefix not per-address. > > I agree in principle, just wonder how big the prefix boundary for > > "per-prefix" should be... (and I can make cases for "a /32 should be > > good enough??? or "maybe /48 or even /64 level"...) > > I would say whatever the prefix length is that is advertised on the link > (=SLAAC=/64 typically). Of course, you probably receive savings of only 2x by > doing this (for example, temp + perm address). One _could_ argue for larger > prefixes if you could somehow intuit that they are from same ISP and use same > uplink, but what is preventing ISP from applying different traffic shaping on > them if they for some reason give you multiple prefixes? I was actually looking the other way, destination space - if you know that for, say, 2001:608::1 the path over ISP A is "better" (for whatever local metric), everything else inside 2001:608::/32 will have the same result for the same metric, as it's really a single network in a single city with identical routing policy for all of the /32. But this is just this particular ISP, while others might have vastly different routing policyies for different /48s out of the same /32, like "Akamai"... > So for simplicity???s sake, I think that the per-prefix-on-link-granularity > is the sane level. I have the nagging suspicion that "permanent + temp addr" wasn't even on Brian's radar here (and might not actually be relevant :-) - if you have temp addresses, you don't connect outbound from the permanent address in the same prefix, no?). > I have been thinking about how to abstract this stuff from applications too; > ultimately there are two semi-separate things that need to happen; > > - SA selection > - DA selection (+IPv4/IPv6) > > and in case of TCP apps, assuming you are willing to skip DA > selection (for apps that do not care about it), you could easily > enough make SA-choice-only ~HE that would work with every app, by > doing simply multiple connections in the background and just using > the one that succeeds connecting fastest. Mmmh, interesting idea, yes. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpElNFNtnsTT.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] sorting out the right ipv6 addr to choose and name in a source specific world
Hi, On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 01:23:37PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Probe results should probably > be cached for a while and interpreted per-prefix not per-address. I agree in principle, just wonder how big the prefix boundary for "per-prefix" should be... (and I can make cases for "a /32 should be good enough" or "maybe /48 or even /64 level"...) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] sorting out the right ipv6 addr to choose and name in a source specific world
Hi, On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:54:54PM +0100, Matthieu Boutier wrote: > I do end-to-end measurements in my mosh implementation, so we should > not have the problem. The host selects a source address, in fact a > pair (src, dst), depending on the performances of the whole path > determined by this pair. This is extremely cool (and quite likely one of the reasons why mosh performs so well under adverse network conditions). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] dst/src routing drafts (for IETF-91 rtgwg)
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 02:06:26PM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
> isn't multi-prefix multi-homing one of the most obvious use cases
> for source address dependent routing? that's not restricted with
> homenets, but also any small network. I'm assuming large networks
> will continue with PI addresses and BGP based multihoming.
I see the distinction somewhere in the "what defines policy in a network",
as in:
- in a "big" company network, there usually is some sort of network access
policy, which is defined and enforced by the network people - so you'll
see BGP policies and PI, or in a "dual /48" style shop, I expect to see
dual-NPT66-with-ULA devices where you can configure your policy ("surfing
goes out via ISP A, mail goes out via ISP B") in the network device
- in a homenet, small company ("barber shop") network, there is no "admin",
and to try to enforce network policy ("surfing via cable, bittorrent via
DSL") in the network device is futile, because "no admin". So here you
need SADR to empower the end device - and by that means, the user - to
define policy. Have the bittorrent client use the source address from
the DSL ISP's /48, the web browser use the source address from the
Cable ISP, and things work the way the user wants it.
... and this is why I really really like dual-/48 multihoming for the
"not really managed" SOHO case, as it puts policy decisions where they
can be made (= user's device) - and of course, why dual-/48 is not going
to fly for enterprise networks (= can't have the user decide that).
(In case this wasn't obvious, I'm agreeing with Ole here, I just try to
shed light from a slightly different angle on that.)
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 05:47:02PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
> In your letter dated Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:58:43 +0200 you wrote:
> >Please understand that there are way more non-geeks out there that have
> >no interest in computers except "use them" than there are geeks who care
> >about IP addressing. *Our* job is to make it work for *them*, without
> >forcing our world view on them ("they need to be able to put a static
> >IP address in DNS!" - no, my mom doesn't need to do that)
>
> Our current 'world view' is that companies get stable addresses. Consumers get
> crap.
Well, "we" are not calling it "crap", we call it "make it work and scale",
but otherwise, I agree that there is a difference between "large companies"
and "SOHO companies and end users" (the homenet approach works perfectly
well for a typical SOHO network - a few PCs, a printer, some file storage,
mail server hosted "as a service with filtering" elsewhere, etc.) - and
that's the numbers of each.
> We invent complicated stuff like dynamically turning ULA on and off that
> nobody
> else uses. We force renumbering in the name of privacy, etc.
Thing is, we invented DNS, so people do not have to rely on fixed addresses
in their /etc/hosts. Then people invented mDNS so inside the home, nobody
would have to understand how to handle a DNS zone.
So you think DNS and mDNS should have never done either, because it paves
the way down the hill?
Unless you can come up with a routing architecture that can handle stable
end users addresses (as in "whatever the customer does, wherever he moves
his ISP connection to, and how many ISPs he's going to have") for all
the end users out there, your world view is not actually very helpful.
DNS, mDNS, SIP register, and such stuff exist that nobody has to rely on
IP addresses never changing, and that people can focus on useful labels
instead (like, "hostnames" or "telephone numbers", which in itself are
only useful because phone books exist to map a name to a number and
traditional phones could not call names).
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
pgpySMNK3BO2y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
Hi, On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:34:17AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > > I explained my reasoning. Multiple times. Here and on other lists. Again > > and again. > > When you repeat yourself again and again, people stop listening to you. Well, there are some people in the IETF that really don't know how to listen, but that's not particular to *me*... Some other people seem to understand what I say, and agree with it, or sometimes disagree with the particulars, based on practical experience, or on understanding my points. > There was a consensus call done on this, and the architecture document > contains the results of that consensus. If you have some additional > objection to raise, you should raise it, but I'm very sorry, you do > have to show your work. You can't just make assertions about what you > think is true, and expect your opinion to count in the consensus call. > We don't vote in the IETF, so opinions just don't make sense in that context. Huh, what? Maybe I have problems listening as well. I fully fail to see how this paragraph relates to anything I have stated in the thread - which strayed from the subject of "ULA or not" quite a bit to "what happens out there in the real world". > In particular, you appear to be arguing as if ULAs and GUAs are > treated identically by IPv6 stacks, but they are not. This was not my point, and isn't, as it is not relevant. My point in this discussion is that applications need to handle changing addresses under their feet, while the application is running, and in quite a number of cases, while a session is established (to pick up the "I ssh to my summer house and leave that session running for months" example - well, add homenet multihoming to the mix, and you really want MPTCP, shim6 or something like mosh to handle "oh, and I really want my SSH session to stay up even if one of my ISPs goes down for a few days"). This is fully independent of the question "do we add ULA to the mix or not", as ULAs are irrelevant for communication to partners outside the home (as long as nobody puts ULAs into global DNS). As far as "SHOULD or MUST", I don't have a strong opinion either way, as local communication is just a special case of global communication - and if global comms can handle changing addresses, getting that right for local comms is *so* much easier. My homenet test setup works nicely with two ISPs, four partially-meshed HNCP routers, and no ULAs at all, but having another address won't make much difference... > So while I > agree that there is a real problem making this work for multi-homed > homenets (a problem, by the way, which homenet has decided to try > to solve), this is completely orthogonal to the question of whether > we should use ULAs in the homenet. Indeed. Could you remind me what your point was? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpYCAyzCxxQ9.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
Hi, On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:21:12AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > > That reply doesn't surprise me the least, it's the standard answer from > > every geek who has not spent a few weeks thinking about this :-) > > This isn't a helpful response, Gert. If you are right, you can > explain the reason that you are right. You don't have to accuse > the people you are talking to of not thinking this through. I explained my reasoning. Multiple times. Here and on other lists. Again and again. And I spend a lot of time testing things, running against walls, and telling people what needs to be improved to make it work. Since years. But I still run headlong into the typical geek response "I do things in my network that are not compatible to this" - and, well, so do I, but that is a completely irrelevant point of view when talking about homenets that are used by millions of non-geeks plus a few IETF geeks. *This* is the widening of horizon that is needed for meaningful contribution to this discussion. "I'll just get me a tunnel" is not. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpYCwcyFZBWt.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 06:17:28PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
> But then when I tell other people, they can't do it. Because on a consumer
> lines
> it is just too complicated.
Isn't the main thing that "other people are just plain not interested in
doing so in the first place"...?
Please understand that there are way more non-geeks out there that have
no interest in computers except "use them" than there are geeks who care
about IP addressing. *Our* job is to make it work for *them*, without
forcing our world view on them ("they need to be able to put a static
IP address in DNS!" - no, my mom doesn't need to do that)
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
pgpRwQRLIRlw5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
Hi, On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:48:49AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > I believe we should use SHIM6, MP-TCP, "mosh" and other similar techniques > to make sure that we can move sessions around when doing renumbering. > > IPv6 has the infrastructure on L3 to handle renumbering gracefully, now we > just need L4 and applications to get with the program as well. I would > really like to see us go in the way of IP addresses not being the single > anchorpoint of all communication, we need to make sure that we have other > mechanisms such as L4 protocols being "agile" when it comes to IP address > change over time, and also having DNS or other mechanism being able to be > updated with information over time to enable this mobility. This. (And yes, stable IPv6 addresses are so much more convenient, you can put them into /etc/hosts and all that. Wait, /etc/hosts got deprecated? When did that happen? Right :-) ). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
Hi, On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:13:34AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 14, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > >> Indeed. The question is, should we increase the number of instances in > >> which they are forced to handle it, or no? > > > > Because this is the only way that application developers will learn to > > handle it. > > Application developers _can't_ handle it. Applications have no control over > routing, and making applications do source address selection is a really bad > idea. Application developers MUST handle changing addresses, for example by not doing silly things like "at startup, do some DNS resolving and socket binding to a fixed address, and assume that the addresses you receive are not changing". I haven't even mentioned source address selection, as that doesn't come into play for a singlehomed homenet - but as soon as the homenet gets multihomed, applications would benefit a LOT from doing intelligent source address selection. Like in presenting users a selection menu "use ISP? -> SpaceNet, HE.NET, don't care" and picking the appropriate source address. Yes, there's quite a bit of specifications missing to be able to do that (like, how do I find a label to stick onto an address I find on my interface), but for a *homenet*, this is the way it needs to be - nobody will fiddle with the router to do "http goes to SpaceNet, bittorrent goes to HE.NET", but if the application can do it, it greatly empowers users. > I haven't encountered any ISPs that do flash renumbering, and I'm > surprised to hear you saying that T-Online is doing it: that's not > my understanding. In general, providers that renumber their > customers use graceful renumbering, not flash renumbering. There's > no reason to do flash renumbering. In the end, at some point in time, the old prefix goes away, however you phase it. So if the application stubbornly clings to it, it will stop working. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgp1T5sUwaC0g.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
Hi, On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 05:09:42PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote: > In your letter dated Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:59:30 +0200 you wrote: > >Because this is the only way that application developers will learn to > >handle it. > > I'm happy my ISP doesn't do that. I would probably just use a tunnel instead. > > One of the advantages of IPv6 is that it is way easier to run publicly > accessible services at home. You still need to put an address in DNS, but > that's a one time action. > > Hmm, if changing prefixes is such a great idea, then maybe RIRs should do > the same :-) That reply doesn't surprise me the least, it's the standard answer from every geek who has not spent a few weeks thinking about this :-) My mom and dad do not put stuff in DNS. If at all, their router does, and *that* one perfectly well knows how to handle changing prefixes, and update DNS if needed. It has a menu listing currently active hosts, you pick a host ID from it, give it a name, and it's published. (It's not as good as it could be, as you end up in the vendor's DNS tree and not in a DNS domain of your choice, but it's "running code") Now, please tell me who is more relevant for *homenet*? A geek who is stuck in "I want to do this the old way! I have always done it that way!" or "a standard mom and dad household"? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpJ3g6dUpQs4.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
Hi, On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:41:55AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 14, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > > "flash renumber is a problem" is pretty much a non-argument, as flash > > renumbering *will* happen, and devices in the home *will* have to handle it. > > Indeed. The question is, should we increase the number of instances in > which they are forced to handle it, or no? Yes. Because this is the only way that application developers will learn to handle it. (When I first learned that T-Online was forcing this on their customers, I was quite upset. After thinking about it for a few weeks, I came to the conclusion that it's the inevitable and correct approach. If you make the homenet renumber only "every few months", like "when the router is offline for longer than hours", people and application developers will start assuming that IPv6 addresses are something static - and then, when that renumbering happens, you'll get uproar and support calls. Force a prefix change on homenets once a week, and developers will learn how to cope with it, without breaking every time, requiring application / appliance restarts, etc) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpAzXqYs9EBv.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
Hi, On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 08:44:03AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: > This is something we discussed at length back when we were doing > the architecture document. The problem with this approach is that > it exposes you to flash renumbering when you get back online, or > if you can't do flash renumbering, you could easily find yourself > without connectivity because you are using the wrong source address. "flash renumber is a problem" is pretty much a non-argument, as flash renumbering *will* happen, and devices in the home *will* have to handle it. Carriers do it today - "here's a new /56, have fun", without even having to reconnect. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] New version draft-mglt-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-02.txt
Hi, On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:41:15AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > I think that whether you "auto-export", or whitelist, or blacklist, etc. is > completely a local matter. We may recommend a default, but we should make > sure that the mechanisms exist. +1 for "have a policy that specifies whether names should be auto-exported or not", and I actually want all my machines be visible, and most of them be *reachable*, since they can protect themselves. They have to. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpV9IE_SsMQa.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc
Hi, On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:09:34PM +0200, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Some deployments of IPv6 homenets with multiple IP subnets dont run > routing protocols, but static routing. I've discovered that recently > with much enthusiasm. Maybe it's just a first step, but I havent seen > documented this simple and numerous existing deployments. This is not a "homenet" as per this architecture document. The key is "it needs to work for your parents, without you driving over and setting it up for them". I know people that have BGP routing with PI space at home, but the fact that it's "at home" does not make it a *homenet*. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet
Hi, On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 10:47:03AM +0200, Pierre Pfister wrote: > So even if most will agree that supporting multiple routing protocol is a > madness in the general case. > It?s not that hard to ?support it? while requiring one single routing > protocol as mandatory in home networks. > And whenever we want to move to another protocol, maybe in 20 years, it will > allow transitioning softly. Having multiple routing protocols and select between them is already permitted by the current HNCP draft (for example). The question was more whether "add ISIS today" would bring a benefit to homenet, and I still maintain "no" - to the contrary, it is harmful - as you said, we can be happy if CPE vendors get one protocol right. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpYK9pme44W4.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet
Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:17:16PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote: > >> On Sat, 31 May 2014, Gert Doering wrote: > >> > >>> So I'd keep the list of supported protocols as small as possible - and > >>> stick to IP protocols. ISIS is great for ISP environments, but does not > >>> nicely adapt to a unix environment where the kernel has no idea about > >>> ISO/OSI protocols and you have to do everything via raw sockets. Which > >>> would be a fairly typical environment for a CPE router. [..] > > I could be wrong, but I don't think that was the point. There are also layer > 2 protocols to consider. I quoted my original comment above. This is the context we're talking about: protocols to be considered for routing inside the homenet. In *homenet*. > Expecting everything to be handled at IP transport layer 3 will confront > extremely difficult security issues. > > Testing using a modern printer/scanner illustrated a major problem when > devices were not restricted to link-local. Something like RBridge supporting > PPP would provide a much safer foundation upon which to build. > > All networks must begin with layer 2 starting points. Selective routing > between Rbridges would allow an ability to share data between HDCP enforced > multi-media display devices using link-local addresses. There will be video > cameras, baby monitors, HVAC/SCADA controls, printers and scanners offering > media stick access, etc. These devices were never intended to directly > interface with the Internet. These devices MUST NOT be assigned routable > IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. Using mDNS proxy into DNS would be setting the stage > for major security disasters. While this is all true, I cannot see how this related to what I said above, and to the question of "is ISIS better suited as a link-state protocol to transport opaque LSAs than OSPFv3?" - because *both* do that job without "assigned routable IPv4 or IPv6 addresses" - ISIS talks over L2 (or potentially IPv6 link-local as was mentioned), OSPFv3 talks over IPv6 link-local. This thread wasn't about questioning the whole homenet architecture, but about a specific side aspect: would additional routing protocols be considered a plus. And I say "no", out of general reasoning, and because I consider the particular protocol to be not very well suited for typical SoHo router implementations. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpDugsyscixy.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet
Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 08:57:16PM +, Leddy, John wrote: > But for anyone that wants to run IPX, DecNet, Appletalk, Banyon Vines? In *homenet*? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpFzN4BFp7PD.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet
Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 09:16:44PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2014, Gert Doering wrote: > > >> This is actually a feature, the fact that ISIS doesn't require IPv6 to be > >> up and running before it can get itself started and you know the topology > >> of the home. > > > > Uh, what? So the benefit of ISIS (over ISO/OSI transport) in the home would > > be "you can have IPv4 in your homenet, without having IPv6"? > > No, that's not what I said and not what I intended. > > You can do topology and router discovery without needing IPv4 or IPv6 > running if you use ISIS. True, but for what purpose? Maybe I'm a bit daft today, but I cannot see the scenario where this would be useful. If I'm going to do IPv6 "later on", I'm not really sure how much you're going to win by running ISIS "right away, before IPv6 is running" - and as you say, you don't intend to be not running IPv6 at all. So what? [ different thread ] > > Then it was quite clear: I can't see a point in doing protocol work to > > solve something in a fashion that would be very very very similar to an > > already-existing protocol that has mature implementations. > > And what protocol are you referring to? Babel? OSPFv3? RIPv2? I can guess > you're referring to OSPFv3 since you're now saying "similar" (which wasn't > in your earlier email), but I don't understand why you feel the need for > irony and need the reader to guess instead of just saying what you mean. Oh well. Maybe my irony detector needs recalibration. I thought it was absolutely obvious from the context of "link state protocol" and "transports opaque LSAs" (plus "a new protocol very much like an existing protocol") that only OSPFv3 would fill that niche. RIPv2 is most certainly not a link state protocol... Yes, I didn't say "similar", because I wrote a sentence that repeated the same thing twice. Which implies "quite similar". But oh well, I'll refraim from trying to use humor to bring across a message that should have been obvious in the first place. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpihwvemEmcr.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet
Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 06:33:45PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2014, Gert Doering wrote: > > > So I'd keep the list of supported protocols as small as possible - and > > stick to IP protocols. ISIS is great for ISP environments, but does not > > nicely adapt to a unix environment where the kernel has no idea about > > ISO/OSI protocols and you have to do everything via raw sockets. Which > > would be a fairly typical environment for a CPE router. > > This is actually a feature, the fact that ISIS doesn't require IPv6 to be > up and running before it can get itself started and you know the topology > of the home. Uh, what? So the benefit of ISIS (over ISO/OSI transport) in the home would be "you can have IPv4 in your homenet, without having IPv6"? I truly can't see a reason why this would be useful in the time frame when this would be ready - and it's also out of scope of what the homenet architecture concerns itself with. Which, as far as I understand, is "make IPv6 work right, and do not damage IPv4", while excluding IPv4-only scenarios. > How one values this feature is obviously up to each individual. > > Oh, and the other email you sent. Irony doesn't help make your point. That > email was quite confusing about what point you were actually trying to > make. Then it was quite clear: I can't see a point in doing protocol work to solve something in a fashion that would be very very very similar to an already-existing protocol that has mature implementations. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgphuMdkHKX1t.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet
Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 01:11:31PM +, Leddy, John wrote: > In the past, and rumblings now, there was some push to enable ISIS over > IPV6. > > Independent of Homenet, I think the investigation will continue. So, then, we'll have one link-state protocol that runs over IPv6 and can transport opaque LSAs for arbitrary address families, and one other link-state protocol that runs over IPv6 and can transport opaque LSAs for arbitrary address families. Yes, this is quite obviously going to be a big win. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpqmZvIRSOIw.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet
Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 11:41:33AM +, Liubing (Leo) wrote: > 1) Is it necessary to enforce only one routing protocol? > If HNCP is adopted, I guess multiple routing protocols could be easily > supported ? > I think it might be more flexible if homenet router support multiple routing > protocols. Is there any harm? > (Note: supporting multiple routing protocols here doesn't mean they need run > at the same time, just more choices.) "More protocols" means "more interoperability testing" and "more combinations of vendor products that suddenly do not interoperate, even if they should". So I'd keep the list of supported protocols as small as possible - and stick to IP protocols. ISIS is great for ISP environments, but does not nicely adapt to a unix environment where the kernel has no idea about ISO/OSI protocols and you have to do everything via raw sockets. Which would be a fairly typical environment for a CPE router. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
