Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Tim Chown 17 June 2014 18:11 Hi Ray, I like your questions, and I think many of your own suggested answers to your questions are in line with what I believe the WG has assumed in its discussions. I find myself in agreement with most (and perhaps all) of them. Gla

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Hi, On 17 Jun 2014, at 18:48, joel jaeggli wrote: > On 6/17/14, 10:38 AM, ietfdbh wrote: >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru >>> Petrescu >> [...] >>> >>> I suppose parents will likely ask the IPv6 specialists something l

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On 6/17/14, 10:38 AM, ietfdbh wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru >> Petrescu > [...] >> >> I suppose parents will likely ask the IPv6 specialists something like > this: >> - should I click on '6rd' or '6to4' or on 'DHCPv

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

> -Original Message- > From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru > Petrescu [...] > > I suppose parents will likely ask the IPv6 specialists something like this: > - should I click on '6rd' or '6to4' or on 'DHCPv6' or on 'PPPoE'? > - should I click on ULA or n

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Hi Ray, I like your questions, and I think many of your own suggested answers to your questions are in line with what I believe the WG has assumed in its discussions. I find myself in agreement with most (and perhaps all) of them. But obviously I can’t speak for the WG, only my perception of W

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Le 16/06/2014 22:18, Gert Doering a écrit : 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

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 > docume

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Le 15/06/2014 18:03, Juliusz Chroboczek a écrit : "The inclusion of physical layer characteristics including bandwidth, loss, and latency in path computation should be considered for optimising communication in the homenet." Should the text then rather say "Path selection in Homenet needs to b

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Le 14/06/2014 17:49, Juliusz Chroboczek a écrit : So even though link-local multicast may be part of the IPv6 base spec, it may be desirable to avoid use of multicast traffic where possible. e.g. a routing protocol could perform initial neighbor discovery using multicast, but then switch to unica

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Hi Mark, participants to homenet WG, I have some comments, FWIW. Le 14/06/2014 10:04, Mark Townsley a écrit : On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:44 PM, Ted Lemon mailto:mel...@fugue.com>> wrote: On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote: It's prototype i

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 16, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >>> path selection in a homenet needs to be more refined than minimising >>> hop count. > >> {BABEL, EIGRP, full IS-IS .} might be preferred over {OSPFv3} > > To be fair, there's nothing *in principle* preventing an implementa

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

>>path selection in a homenet needs to be more refined than minimising >>hop count. > {BABEL, EIGRP, full IS-IS .} might be preferred over {OSPFv3} To be fair, there's nothing *in principle* preventing an implementation of OSPFv3 from encoding interesting stuff within its metric -

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: "The inclusion of physical layer characteristics including bandwidth, loss, and latency in path computation should be considered for optimising communication in the homenet." Should the text then rather say "Path selection in Homenet needs to be more sophisticated tha

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

>>> "The inclusion of physical layer characteristics including bandwidth, >>> loss, and latency in path computation should be considered for >>> optimising communication in the homenet." > Should the text then rather say "Path selection in Homenet needs to be > more sophisticated than measuring pu

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: So even though link-local multicast may be part of the IPv6 base spec, it may be desirable to avoid use of multicast traffic where possible. e.g. a routing protocol could perform initial neighbor discovery using multicast, but then switch to unicast when maintaining indi

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

> So even though link-local multicast may be part of the IPv6 base spec, > it may be desirable to avoid use of multicast traffic where > possible. e.g. a routing protocol could perform initial neighbor > discovery using multicast, but then switch to unicast when maintaining > individual neighbor as

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Juliusz Chroboczek 14 June 2014 16:25 Is a specific update address preferred? [my view] The routing protocol should support both use of unicast and multicast updates. Please clarify. Are you saying that the routing protocol must be able to run over lin

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

> Is a specific update address preferred? > [my view] The routing protocol should support both use of unicast and > multicast updates. Please clarify. Are you saying that the routing protocol must be able to run over link layers that don't support link-local multicast? AFAIK, link-local multic

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

That's really helpful, Ray. Thanks! (I don't know the answers to those questions, but they're just the sort of questions I wouldn't have thought to ask, which is why I tossed this back to the working group.) ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Tim Chown wrote: On 13 Jun 2014, at 14:57, Ted Lemon > wrote: On Jun 13, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti > wrote: Not to me they didn't. Seriously - if you understand what we're being asked to do, and it's simple to explain, then it shou

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:44 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >> It's prototype implementations and early deployments that will >> tell us the right answer, not further debate. > > Again, I didn't ask for "the answer." I asked for a description of

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > It's prototype implementations and early deployments that will > tell us the right answer, not further debate. Again, I didn't ask for "the answer." I asked for a description of what we want in a routing protocol that isn't so prescripti

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On 14/06/2014 02:29, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: >> Ted, you asked Ray and I to issue a WGLC on a very specific set of text. You >> are falling into your own trap of going beyond that. > > No, Mark, I agreed with Ray that the proposed text needed a last

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:29 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: >> Ted, you asked Ray and I to issue a WGLC on a very specific set of text. You >> are falling into your own trap of going beyond that. > > No, Mark, I agreed with Ray that the proposed text nee

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:25 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > Well, 3 of the 4 questions seem to be answered, or at least considered if > left relatively open. None of the text there looks like requirements, but yes, I agree the text already addresses some of the points I brought up. Unfortunately, it doe

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: > Ted, you asked Ray and I to issue a WGLC on a very specific set of text. You > are falling into your own trap of going beyond that. No, Mark, I agreed with Ray that the proposed text needed a last call. Last calls are not for rubber stamps.

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On 13 Jun 2014, at 14:57, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 13, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> Not to me they didn't. Seriously - if you understand what we're being asked >> to do, and it's simple to explain, then it shouldn't take long for you to >> type. Please? > > The working group

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 13, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 13, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> Not to me they didn't. Seriously - if you understand what we're being asked >> to do, and it's simple to explain, then it shouldn't take long for you to >> type. Please? > > The working gro

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On 12 Jun 2014, at 23:44, Michael Richardson wrote: > > I will attempt to read the diffs; but... It Just Doesn't Matter > better is the enemy of good enough, and it was good enough a year ago. Well… :) The last few months have basically been about bashing through a list of around 80+ IESG com

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Hi Ray, As ever, good commentary. On the 30 second thing, that was put in after discussion in a homenet session maybe 4-5 IETFs ago. As the text says, it is a “finger in the air number”, but the whole of that “but as a guideline…” part could be removed. Tim On 12 Jun 2014, at 22:20, Ray Hunte

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 13, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 13, 2014, at 2:26 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> I vote for removing the text and returning the draft to the IESG as WG >> consensus, and if the IESG is not happy with that, then ask them to explain >> clearly what it is that they are worr

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On 13 Jun 2014, at 14:38, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 13, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> No, the problem is that the working group doesn't know what is being asked >> for. > > We could go around on this all week… I must say as the editor of the arch text I am also very confused. I

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 13, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > Not to me they didn't. Seriously - if you understand what we're being asked > to do, and it's simple to explain, then it shouldn't take long for you to > type. Please? The working group would presumably like for there to be routing on the ho

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 13, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > No, the problem is that the working group doesn't know what is being asked > for.\ Juliusz Chroboczek's messages yesterday at 22:19 UTC (assuming I did the timezone math right) did a pretty good job of capturing what I've been trying to com

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 13, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > No, the problem is that the working group doesn't know what is being asked > for. We could go around on this all week... ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/list

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 13, 2014, at 8:56 AM, Markus Stenberg wrote: > Problem for me is that I don’t understand what that added text _is_ about. > What I _would_ like to do is remove even _more_ from that section, but for > some reason that doesn’t sound like direction the routing ADs want to go. That would be

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On 13.6.2014, at 14.40, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 13, 2014, at 2:26 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> I vote for removing the text and returning the draft to the IESG as WG >> consensus, and if the IESG is not happy with that, then ask them to explain >> clearly what it is that they are worried abo

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 13, 2014, at 2:26 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > I vote for removing the text and returning the draft to the IESG as WG > consensus, and if the IESG is not happy with that, then ask them to explain > clearly what it is that they are worried about. People have already made suggestions for h

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Catching up on this thread (message times are based on NZST, UTC+12): On 13/06/2014 00:45, Markus Stenberg wrote: > This sounds _way_ too specific to me. I agree. Discussion of adding metrics together, although it seems like Routing 101, just seems out of place. On 13/06/2014 01:59, Ted Lemon

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 12, 2014, at 6:46 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > What is it that they are worried homenet might do? Heck if I know. ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Ted Lemon wrote: > Both of the routing ADs complained about the text in this section. I > do not actually clearly understand their complaints, but after > discussing it with Alia (who did not raise a DISCUSS, but was happy to > talk with me about it) and with Adrian (who really

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Ray Bellis wrote: > You may have noticed multiple revisions of draft-ietf-homenet-arch posted > recently. After many iterations and a ton of work for our Editor In Chief, Tim > Chown, all IESG “DISCUSS” positions have been resolved to either “Yes” or “No > Objection”, with the e

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

> So LLNs are customers of whatever connectivity the homenet routers > provide, and are not themselves homenet routers. Ah, I see. This does not preclude an LLN router from implementing support for Homenet, just makes it explicit that Homenet makes no such requirement on LLN routers, and makes no

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

> But what is the routing supposed to accomplish? Good point. The role of the routing protocol is to provide good enough end-to-end connectivity often enough, where good/often enough is defined by user expectations. > Rapid convergence has been mentioned. That's an implementation technique for

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 12, 2014, at 5:56 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Hmm... I'm pretty certain that people will use degenerate mesh networks > for transit once they realise it's a neat way to avoid laying wiring > between your home and the shack at the back of the garden. Not sure about > LLNs, but I'd be n

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 12, 2014, at 5:56 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > I've already mentioned before that I'd just remove this whole sentence. I agree. But what is the routing supposed to accomplish? Rapid convergence has been mentioned. Load sharing? Path redundancy? I've heard some good suggestio

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

>> Using information distributed through the routing protocol, each node >> in the homenet should be able to build a graph of the topology of the >> whole homenet including attributes such as links, nodes, connectivity, >> and (if supported by the protocol in use) link metrics. > Fine by me. Apart

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Here's my 2c worth on Section 3.5 I'm on record as preferring a "common Homenet routing protocol" without having any fingers in any particular choice. I believe there is rough consensus around the choice of 0 or 1 routing protocol. Going through Section 3.5 line by line. Routing function

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

-Original Message- From: Juliusz Chroboczek Date: Thursday, June 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM To: Ericsson Cc: "homenet@ietf.org Group" Subject: Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc >> I was involved in this discussion > >I'm genuine

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

> I was involved in this discussion I'm genuinely sorry to hear that, Acee. > the statement was merely an attempt to capture the fact that the > existing unicast IGP routing protocols would meet the homenet > requirements [...] while BGP would not be precluded, BGP's rich routing > policy is not

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On 06/12/2014 08:27 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Jun 12, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: That was my problem with other parts of the document: it was *way* too prescriptive about particular technologies. That is wrong for the kind of document. That should be hashed out with actual propose

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 12, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > That was my problem with other parts of the document: it was *way* too > prescriptive about particular > technologies. That is wrong for the kind of document. That should be hashed > out with actual proposed > answers to the architecture docu

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On 06/12/2014 07:54 AM, Townsley.net wrote: I think for an arch document, we should talk generally about how a routing protocol could plug into the rest of the system, but stop short of details within the routing protocol itself. If routing experts are concerned the working group is going to g

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Lemon > Cc: "homenet@ietf.org Group" > Subject: Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc > >>>> This sounds _way_ too specific to me. >> >>> If you are just going to laugh, >> >> Laugh with us, Ted -- it /is/ rath

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

policy is not viewed as being required in the homenet. Thanks, Acee -Original Message- From: Juliusz Chroboczek Date: Thursday, June 12, 2014 at 7:34 AM To: Ted Lemon Cc: "homenet@ietf.org Group" Subject: Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc >&

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

I think for an arch document, we should talk generally about how a routing protocol could plug into the rest of the system, but stop short of details within the routing protocol itself. If routing experts are concerned the working group is going to go into bad territory with cost metrics, path

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

>> This sounds _way_ too specific to me. > If you are just going to laugh, Laugh with us, Ted -- it /is/ rather funny. (I especially liked the "linear sum" touch. What's a non-linear sum?) > This statement should be inclusive of whatever routing protocols the > working group is inclined to con

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 12, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Markus Stenberg wrote: > I provided my feedback. Care to enlighten us why your stance is that we _do_ > need insanely verbose specification of routing paradigm? Both of the routing ADs complained about the text in this section. I do not actually clearly understand

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

To be clear, it is the Routing AD who prosed the text, not Ted (Internet AD). Ted asked that it be run by the WG as he, rightly, considered it substantive and wanted the WG's opinion of it. - Mark On Jun 12, 2014, at 3:33 PM, Markus Stenberg wrote: > On 12.6.2014, at 16.04, Ted Lemon wrote:

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On 12.6.2014, at 16.04, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 12, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Markus Stenberg wrote: >> This sounds _way_ too specific to me. Like a lot of the document by now. >> Specifying routing protocol path cost function in _architecture_ document? >> Ha ha. > If you are just going to laugh, then

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On Jun 12, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Markus Stenberg wrote: > This sounds _way_ too specific to me. Like a lot of the document by now. > Specifying routing protocol path cost function in _architecture_ document? > Ha ha. If you are just going to laugh, then I'm not going to approve the document, and you

[homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

[let's try that again, hopefully without b0rked line wrapping] Dear Working Group, You may have noticed multiple revisions of draft-ietf-homenet-arch posted recently. After many iterations and a ton of work for our Editor In Chief, Tim Chown, all IESG “DISCUSS” positions have been resolved to e

Re: [homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

On 12.6.2014, at 15.20, Ray Bellis wrote: > “Routing within the homenet will determine the least cost path across > the homenet towards the destination address given the source address. > The path cost will be computed as a linear sum of the metric assigned > to each link. The metric may be co

[homenet] Updates to Homenet Architecture Principles doc

Dear Working Group, You may have noticed multiple revisions of draft-ietf-homenet-arch posted recently. After many iterations and a ton of work for our Editor In Chief, Tim Chown, all IESG “DISCUSS” positions have been resolved to either “Yes” or “No Objection”, with the exception of one “Abst