Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

I've tried to trim the CC, not sure if the remaining folks are on the list. > Of course, yet another snakepit is the fact that both Babel and IS-IS > aspects of solution are partially drafts (source-specific for Babel, > various things for IS-IS) and/or unspecified (metrics for IS-IS). The Babel

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On 10.8.2015, at 11.23, Erik Kline wrote: >> Whilst not wanting to de-rail any effort to standardise Babel (since I >> firmly believe it should be standardised), I'd like to hear the WG's >> view on having part of our Homenet stack be on Experimental Track >> instead of PS. E.g., would it affect

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> Whilst not wanting to de-rail any effort to standardise Babel (since I > firmly believe it should be standardised), I'd like to hear the WG's > view on having part of our Homenet stack be on Experimental Track > instead of PS. I'd like to remind folks that Babel has been independently reimplemen

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

-Original Message- From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 12:22 PM To: Michael Richardson Cc: HOMENET Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving forward. >And fuckin ARP and ND don’t have to go everywhere. +1. ARP and ND sho

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> Dino Farinacci wrote: >>> WiFi is build on the assumption that single SSID is singe IP subnet >>> and that stations can roam between AP's without loss of connections. I >>> think this is great. > >> We can do this today when LISP runs on the device. And you only need a >> single IPv6 address!

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

Dino Farinacci wrote: >> WiFi is build on the assumption that single SSID is singe IP subnet >> and that stations can roam between AP's without loss of connections. I >> think this is great. > We can do this today when LISP runs on the device. And you only need a > single IPv

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> > >> Whilst not wanting to de-rail any effort to standardise Babel > > >> (since I firmly believe it should be standardised), I'd like to > > >> hear the WG's view on having part of our Homenet stack be on > > >> Experimental Track instead of PS. E.g., would it affect vendors' > > >> willingnes

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

* Sander Steffann > > Op 10 aug. 2015, om 10:23 heeft Erik Kline het > > volgende geschreven: > > > >> Whilst not wanting to de-rail any effort to standardise Babel > >> (since I firmly believe it should be standardised), I'd like to > >> hear the WG's view on having part of our Homenet stack b

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

Hi, > Op 10 aug. 2015, om 10:20 heeft Lorenzo Colitti het > volgende geschreven: > > Personally I doubt that in the market segment we're talking about (which > includes many vendors that just take open source implementations, integrate > them, and ship them) vendors will understand or care ab

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: > Whilst not wanting to de-rail any effort to standardise Babel (since I > firmly believe it should be standardised), I'd like to hear the WG's > view on having part of our Homenet stack be on Experimental Track > instead of PS. E.g., would it a

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On 10/08/2015 08:32, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > Chairs - what do you think would happen if you called rough consensus on > babel based on the maturity of the running code? Is it even a practical > possibility for you to do so, or is that option out of your reach for as > long as the design team co

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

>> To add to that: has there ever been any evaluation/participation of >> IS-IS at Battle Mesh? > No sign of ISIS here. OLSR, batman, and babel in abundance. Battlemesh tests are done in a pure mesh topology (with non-transitive links), so IS-IS wouldn't work here. (This is not an argument again

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

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

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. Are you seriously saying that

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

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Gert Doering wrote: What is it that Babel does *not* do that ISIS does (and that is relevant for a homenet scenario)? This has been stated and dismissed multiple times because of differing opinions how important these things are. For instance, babel does not have an IETF

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

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> Just to be sure again, what are the requirements for "wifi backbone use > case"? Minimal use of multicast? Metric set so cable is prefered over > wifi? Or also that it checks regularily if packets can be delivered and > change metric? These are all implementation details. We can argue all day a

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Ray Hunter wrote: Now I see a lot of super-heavyweight industry names seemingly failing to grok Homenet in general, and specifically the use case of WIFI as a home backbone. What makes you say this, especially in light of what was presented at the last IETF? This thread.

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Ray Hunter wrote: Where can I download the code to test on Openwrt? The isis Openwrt repo is at: https://git-us.netdef.org/projects/OSR/repos/openwrt-isis-hnet/browse So, depending on what you mean by "the code", it's there. What were you looking for, the most recent dev

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

Mikael Abrahamsson 5 August 2015 08:50 On Tue, 4 Aug 2015, Ray Hunter wrote: As someone who spent rather a lot of time wordsmithing Section 3.5 of RFC7368 into something that could reach rough consensus, I find this discussion rather depressing. Section 3.5 was the li

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> WiFi is build on the assumption that single SSID is singe IP subnet and that > stations can roam between AP's without loss of connections. I think this is > great. We can do this today when LISP runs on the device. And you only need a single IPv6 address! I am asking the question because I w

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> Op 5 aug. 2015, om 21:18 heeft Michael Richardson het > volgende geschreven: > > > Dino Farinacci wrote: >> You have to decide what your interface damping algorithm is if this >> link is not considered down by the implementation. If you can observe >> 50% packet loss in a short period of ti

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

Dino Farinacci wrote: > You have to decide what your interface damping algorithm is if this > link is not considered down by the implementation. If you can observe > 50% packet loss in a short period of time, the implementation should > take the link down and allow the IGP to conv

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

David Oran wrote: > What you describe isn't often on the timescales of the distributed > protocols. A human can only plug and unplug things on timescales of > seconds, not milliseconds, and I think Dino was referring to > high-fequency non-human events that can cause links and box

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> On Aug 4, 2015, at 11:35 PM, Teco Boot wrote: > > >> Op 4 aug. 2015, om 20:22 heeft Dino Farinacci het >> volgende geschreven: >> >> IS-IS hellos are sent by default roughly every 10 seconds. CSNPs to keep the >> link-state database in sync is sent every 10 seconds. > > The sample or de

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

You have to decide what your interface damping algorithm is if this link is not considered down by the implementation. If you can observe 50% packet loss in a short period of time, the implementation should take the link down and allow the IGP to converge to a new path. If there aren’t enough r

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Teco Boot wrote: At least discovery needs multicast. LSDB sync can be unicast. There is code for IS-IS for that, right? Yes. The RP MUST support wireless media, where multicast rate is typically at a low rate and could be lossy. Bulk transfer, Then I guess we need

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> Op 5 aug. 2015, om 16:36 heeft Mikael Abrahamsson het > volgende geschreven: > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Teco Boot wrote: > >> PS. It could be a tough job to get bursty multicast frames in AC_VO. At >> least it needs a shaper for xx% of airtime. > > Why multicast? At least discovery needs mul

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> Op 5 aug. 2015, om 08:50 heeft Mikael Abrahamsson het > volgende geschreven: > > So again, with basic features like setting the metric depending on interface > speed and type (which has been around for 15-20 years for routing protocols > in all kinds of places), what is it that babel would

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Teco Boot wrote: PS. It could be a tough job to get bursty multicast frames in AC_VO. At least it needs a shaper for xx% of airtime. Why multicast? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ homenet mailing list homene

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> Op 5 aug. 2015, om 08:53 heeft Mikael Abrahamsson het > volgende geschreven: > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Teco Boot wrote: > >> Another 2ct: during convergence, there should not be looped packets. >> Reasoning: especially on shared media such as wireless, looped packets >> effect RP behavior an

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On 5.8.2015, at 13.08, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> And then, if people want to talk about additional hypothetical IS-IS >> capabilities that could be added to a homenet IS-IS, I think they should be >> required to describe how much memory and other resources would be needed to >> include that

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: I continue to be confused about the vast array of what is possible in a top-of-the-line IS-IS deployment, and what is being proposed for a small-scale homenet solution. It would be really nice if someone who has created a homenet-sized IS-IS imple

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: I will yield that babel is better in a mesh network where all bets are off Mikael, I have repeatedly asked you to stop caricaturing our position. Lossy links exist, and while we expect a home network to have a stable backbone, topologies such as th

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Erik Kline wrote: > On 29 July 2015 at 16:59, Juliusz Chroboczek > wrote: >>> ISIS is many network topologies including mesh? >> >> There are mesh extensions for ISIS? Interesting, could I please have >> a pointer to that work? > > To add to that: has there ever

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On 29 July 2015 at 16:59, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> ISIS is many network topologies including mesh? > > There are mesh extensions for ISIS? Interesting, could I please have > a pointer to that work? To add to that: has there ever been any evaluation/participation of IS-IS at Battle Mesh? ___

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> I will yield that babel is better in a mesh network where all bets are off Mikael, I have repeatedly asked you to stop caricaturing our position. Lossy links exist, and while we expect a home network to have a stable backbone, topologies such as the one that I described in Section 7 of draft-mrw

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On 05/08/2015 08:26, farina...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> On Aug 4, 2015, at 12:47 PM, David Oran wrote: >> >> I think Dino was referring to high-fequency non-human events that can cause >> links and boxes to flap. > > Right. If we had route flaps once a minute, I would consider that not often.

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Teco Boot wrote: Another 2ct: during convergence, there should not be looped packets. Reasoning: especially on shared media such as wireless, looped packets effect RP behavior and other user traffic badly, and thus result in bad user experience. When I was in TSVWG they s

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Tue, 4 Aug 2015, Ray Hunter wrote: As someone who spent rather a lot of time wordsmithing Section 3.5 of RFC7368 into something that could reach rough consensus, I find this discussion rather depressing. Section 3.5 was the list of requirements we could agree on when the architecture docume

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> Op 4 aug. 2015, om 20:22 heeft Dino Farinacci het > volgende geschreven: > > IS-IS hellos are sent by default roughly every 10 seconds. CSNPs to keep the > link-state database in sync is sent every 10 seconds. The sample or default timers are not optimal for todays wired links. We cannot

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> On Aug 4, 2015, at 12:47 PM, David Oran wrote: > > I think Dino was referring to high-fequency non-human events that can cause > links and boxes to flap. Right. If we had route flaps once a minute, I would consider that not often. Dino ___ homen

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> On Aug 4, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > Dino Farinacci wrote: >> Links and boxes should not go down often in a homenet, so there >> won't >> be a high-rate of packets. This, I believe is a safe assumption. The > > I don't agree. > > Cables are plugged and unplugged on a

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

Dino Farinacci wrote: > Links and boxes should not go down often in a homenet, so there > won't > be a high-rate of packets. This, I believe is a safe assumption. The I don't agree. Cables are plugged and unplugged on a regular basis, and unplug/replug is a good first "what's wrong

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> On Aug 4, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Aug 4, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> I could guess you are referring to the lack of multicast performance over >> wifi. If not, please be clear about “L3 routing over WIFI working/stable” >> means. > > How often does a typi

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Aug 4, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > I could guess you are referring to the lack of multicast performance over > wifi. If not, please be clear about “L3 routing over WIFI working/stable” > means. How often does a typical link over which IS-IS operates drop an IS-IS packet?

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> But if we go for IS IS we're apparently going to have to wait (perhaps > forever) to get L3 routing over WIFI working/ stable. Something that we've > pointedly failed to do in professionally managed office networks in the last > 20 years. What is so unstable about it? I could guess you are

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> >There are mesh extensions for ISIS? Interesting, could I please have a > pointer to that work? > > TRILL RBridges using ISIS in a RBridged mesh topology. I continue to be confused about the vast array of what is possible in a top-of-the-line IS-IS deployment, and what is being proposed for a

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

-Original Message- From: Juliusz Chroboczek [mailto:j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:59 AM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: HOMENET Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving forward. >There are mesh extensions for ISIS? Interesting, could I please have a >poin

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> ISIS is many network topologies including mesh? There are mesh extensions for ISIS? Interesting, could I please have a pointer to that work? -- Juliusz ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

-Original Message- From: Juliusz Chroboczek [mailto:j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 5:08 AM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: HOMENET Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving forward. >Yes, I have. On one router this is easy. You obviously need two routers in >

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

] Moving forward. >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 pr

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

, 2015 1:51 AM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: Juliusz Chroboczek; HOMENET Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving forward. Hemant, On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant) mailto:shem...@cisco.com>> wrote: Have you run, say, RIPng, on one network interface facing the interior of a n

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On 7/28/2015 11:59 AM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: It would be possible for a group like BBF or CableLabs to recommend something for use in operator-procured devices. In some cases this has been effective in getting retail devices also to support (e.g., PPPoE). The US cable industry would perhaps

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> My point was simply that the IETF has multiple of … pretty much everything > else … the reason why things work is that somebody (an operator group, an > industry alliance/forum, …) figure out what is MTI — for their context — and > then do that. > I am simply wondering out loud why that would

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

Hi, > My point was simply that the IETF has multiple of … pretty much everything > else … the reason why things work is that somebody (an operator group, an > industry alliance/forum, …) figure out what is MTI — for their context — and > then do that. > > I am simply wondering out loud why tha

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Jul 28, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Thomas Clausen wrote: > My point was simply that the IETF has multiple of … pretty much everything > else … the reason why things work is that somebody (an operator group, an > industry alliance/forum, …) figure out what is MTI — for their context — and > then do t

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

Dear Ted, My point was simply that the IETF has multiple of … pretty much everything else … the reason why things work is that somebody (an operator group, an industry alliance/forum, …) figure out what is MTI — for their context — and then do that. I am simply wondering out loud why that woul

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Jul 28, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Thomas Clausen wrote: > 4/ I am not so sure that HOMENET (or the IETF) wins by staging a > beauty contest among routing protocols, to “pick the most > beautiful”, > and then mandate that as: > > “THE ONE T

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

I was going to stay quiet on this issue, but what the heck…I’ve been following this on the sidelines for long enough to think I have an opinion (without having a stake in this). My immediate impulse, from following all this from the peanut gallery, is that: 1/ It is required that H

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

+1 - well said. If it weren't actually a serious issue, I would find the constant bickering in homenet re. routing protocol quite comical. I come from the other end of the spectrum (LLNs) and was put off a while ago with the general disdain for catering for anything "the light switch guys" (as we w

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

>> I may have misunderstood -- but are you saying that you have the >> technology to perform bidirectional redistribution between two very >> different routing protocols in an unadministered network, and >> guarantee the absence of persistent routing loops without making >> any assumptions about th

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

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

I would like to *require* of the "design team" that they actually install the available software on at least three routers and try it. I would certainly like to require of the working group the same, but despite 2 years of trying, have lost hope. ___ ho

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

* "Hemant Singh (shemant)" > (c) An average home has one wifi link. I think you'll find that an "average" home has more than 1 wifi link. Maybe somewhere between 1 and 2 is the correct number. For example: The concrete between the two floors in my apartment makes an AP located upstairs practica

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

-Original Message- From: Juliusz Chroboczek [mailto:j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 7:45 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: HOMENET Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving forward. >I may have misunderstood -- but are you saying that you have the technology

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> I would break down the problem by using Babel on the wifi links and > IS-IS on the wired link - what do folks think? If each of Babel and > IS-IS are auto-configurable or close to it, the two combined can be > auto-configurable as well. They each have to distribute their > static and connected

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

Message- From: Pierre Pfister [mailto:pie...@darou.fr] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 2:34 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Ted Lemon; HOMENET; Terry Manderson; Gert Doering; Dino Farinacci; Mikael Abrahamsson Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving forward. I just spent one

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> > (c) An average home has one wifi link. > I just spent one hour at my sister’s home trying to optimize the positioning of a WiFi repeater. Her home is definitely an average-sized one, with average people living in it that do not know anything about IP networking. But they have an ethernet

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Jul 27, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > (a) A routing protocol to use on the wired link at home No. There are multiple links, some wired, some wireless. The whole point of homenet is to get past “the link” or “the wired link and the wireless link”. If we just wanted

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

: Re: [homenet] Moving forward. >This depends on what you mean by "one wifi link". I think we expect homes to >continue to have guest and home wi-fi SSIDs, or equivalent. I don't know >whether this will >continue to be provided at layer 2, or whether homenet >prefi

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> (c) An average home has one wifi link. Many home routers have three wireless links (2.4GHz, 5GHz, and guest). This will only get more common with 802.11ac. > Any other requirements or changes to the above text? Many would prefer a routing protocol with a well-defined, self-contained specificat

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

; Ted Lemon > > ; Dino Farinacci ; HOMENET > > ; Mikael Abrahamsson ; Gert > > Doering ; Terry Manderson > > Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving forward. > > > > > > On Jul 27, 2015, at 8:04 AM, "Hemant Singh (shemant)" > > wrote: > > > (

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

; Doering ; Terry Manderson > Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving forward. > > > On Jul 27, 2015, at 8:04 AM, "Hemant Singh (shemant)" > wrote: > > (c) An average home has one wifi link. > > > > Any other requirements or changes to the above text? > > This

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 -- NetMas

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Jul 27, 2015, at 8:04 AM, "Hemant Singh (shemant)" wrote: > (c) An average home has one wifi link. > > Any other requirements or changes to the above text? This depends on what you mean by "one wifi link". I think we expect homes to continue to have guest and home wi-fi SSIDs, or equivalen

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving forward. Hello Ted: Seems that there's more work than what we can expect from a DT. Otherwise we'd be all set by now. What about forming a flash WG in routing area to see if: - we can extract requirements for home - there's such a thing as a one size

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek < j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote: > Whatever happens within Homenet, it's good to hear that we've managed to > put dynamically computed, unstable metrics on the radar for at least some > IETF insiders. > > The exchange of ideas is also ha

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> yes, sure, IS-IS is great. It does a lot. It would almost certainly work > very nicely in homenet. However, it lacks a feature that the working group > agreed we needed: support for wireless transit networks that might be > lossy. This feature could be added, but is not yet present. Whatever hap

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 estab

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On 26/07/2015 16:10, Ted Lemon wrote: Based on the experience with the DT, it’s clear that some of the points that are made in the homenet architecture document were not sufficiently clear. However, all of these points have been discussed by the working group over the past four years, and th

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

Hello Ted: Seems that there's more work than what we can expect from a DT. Otherwise we'd be all set by now. What about forming a flash WG in routing area to see if: - we can extract requirements for home - there's such a thing as a one size fits all homes routing protocol - provide recommendat

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Jul 26, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > And what makes you think I do not understand the context? > I attended last Homenet WG in Dallas and then joined the list. So I've been > reading the list for 3 months and catching up on all documents. Then you probably remember just how unh

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

And what makes you think I do not understand the context? I attended last Homenet WG in Dallas and then joined the list. So I've been reading the list for 3 months and catching up on all documents. Dino > On Jul 26, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > >> On Jul 26, 2015, at 2:46 AM, Dino Fa

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Jul 26, 2015, at 2:46 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > The email wasn't intended to be, honest. I was trying to be helpful. And as I > said ignore my email if you wish to. I appreciate that, but the essence of being helpful is to start out by trying to clearly understand the context. You didn’

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

Hi, > Op 26 jul. 2015, om 03:07 heeft Ted Lemon het volgende > geschreven: > > Thanks, but the working group is not confused as to whether IS-IS could be > made to work. We understand that it could be made to work. One active > participant in the working group has an open source implement

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> This whole thread is really patronizing. The email wasn't intended to be, honest. I was trying to be helpful. And as I said ignore my email if you wish to. Dino ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Jul 25, 2015, at 8:56 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > One comment that ISIS does not need an IP address to work is not very > important for IPv6. An IPv6 node creates its link-local address and thus > has an IPv6 address, by default. The link local address can be used in by > any rout

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

. Hemant From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mel...@fugue.com] Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 8:43 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: Gert Doering; Mikael Abrahamsson; HOMENET; Terry Manderson Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving forward. On Jul 25, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) mailto:shem...@cisco.com>>

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Jul 25, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > Even the switching networks use ISIS because TRILL (rfc6325) uses ISIS > beneath the covers. At least three switch chip vendors support TRILL and > thus ISIS. Homenet is chartered to produce a suite of specifications that will allo

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Jul 25, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > Correction. It took about 2 years to get it right and 18 years of usage and > new features additions (like IPv6 about 15 years ago). But most features the > homenet use-case may not need to use. This whole thread is really patronizing. Sor

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

-Original Message- From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 3:39 PM To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: HOMENET; Gert Doering; Terry Manderson Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving forward. >And that will tell us exactly what about the ne

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

100% agree with Dino - nothing beats extensive use in real networks and consecutive bug fixing. at least you could skip teething... Regards, Jeff On Jul 25, 2015, at 7:10 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> Someone needs to put the foot down and choose. Either you choose IETF >> process as a tie-bre

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> 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. Correction. It took about 2 years to get it right and 18 years of usage and new features additions (like IPv6 about 15 years ago). But most feature

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

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

> Someone needs to put the foot down and choose. Either you choose IETF process > as a tie-breaker, in which case ISIS is the obvious choice, or you choose > some other tie-breaker and then it might be another choice or no choice. Then I’ll be the foot if anyone cares. My 2 cents. You can ignore

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: Perhaps we could stop caricaturing each other's positions? I'm sure we'll enjoy each other's company much more that way. I didn't know that was I was doing. I was merely stating the most commonly reason I have heard for why babel should be chose

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015, Gert Doering wrote: 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"? Because there are other factors as well, no

Re: [homenet] Moving forward.

Hi, > 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. +1

  1   2   >