Re: [aqm] [homenet] IEEE 1905.1 and 1905.1a

Randy Turner <> Fri, 27 March 2015 06:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A39E1A6F7A for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5XUpzeFSFWso for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AA9A1A1B27 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t2R6Lcsv018463 for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 02:21:38 -0400
Received: (qmail 23281 invoked by uid 0); 27 Mar 2015 06:21:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ? ( by 0 with ESMTPA; 27 Mar 2015 06:21:38 -0000
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5986C37C-29BE-46E2-833C-4BBACF17E97A
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Randy Turner <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12D508)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:21:36 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Philippe Klein <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:27:15 -0700
Cc: Hans Liu <>, Dave Taht <>, Claire Cheng <>, "STARK, BARBARA H" <>, HOMENET Working Group <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [aqm] [homenet] IEEE 1905.1 and 1905.1a
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 06:21:44 -0000

Is there a typo or paste error below? The text reads :
"...and an optional distributed model in which a centralized...(snip)"

Is it centralized or distributed?


> On Mar 27, 2015, at 12:36 AM, Philippe Klein <> wrote:
> IEEE 1905.1 is a protocol that has been designed (I was one of the initial designer)for building a topology data base of the hybrid home network for diagnostic purpose (despite the initial claim in the PAR) and  not a  protocol for dynamic purpose (for example as it’s the message traffic was  intended to be low , the protocol did not took in account the traffic overhead and the multiplication of messages the protocol could create.
> A stronger approach will be to consider combining the Layer 3 routing protocol with the L2 IEEE 802.1Qca which provide SPB on multiple paths (editor: 802.1Qca will allow to optimize the bandwidth by allowing to use the *whole* topology of the home network in a loopfree manner (a simple RSTP might result in using only a subset of the topology).
> Additionally 802.1Qca could use the *same* IS-IS database that the one used by the L3 protocol and an optional  distributed model in which one centralized computation path element CPE could remotely populate the (L2) forwarding table of CP (passive node that do not compute paths)  thru LSPs:  the same IS-IS protocol will benefit to both L3 and L2 and this is a big advantage adding any protocol on low end CE nodes that have limited resources is always a challenge and often a roadblock to successful acceptance and deployment.
> 802.1Qca is not agnostic to IS-IS and any protocol that could populate the topology database will be fine too.
> There is a group of people that are active in both  IETF and IEEE 802 that are ready to discuss this approach to create a long needed coherent L3 & L2 stack.
> Sincerely
> /Philippe
> Philippe Klein, PhD |Technical Director, Broadband Technology Group
> Broadcom Corporation | Golan House, P.O.Box 273, Airport City, 70100 Israel
> (M) +972 54 313 4500 |
> From: homenet [] On Behalf Of Dave Taht
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 6:35 AM
> To: Hans Liu
> Cc: HOMENET Working Group; STARK, BARBARA H; Claire Cheng;
> Subject: Re: [homenet] IEEE 1905.1 and 1905.1a
> up until this moment I had never heard of 
> this spec, and it does sound useful.
> +10 on more open access to it. +100 on anyone working on open source code for it.
> I would certainly like closer relationships between the IEEE and IETF one day, perhaps even a truly joint (as opposed to back to back) conference. For far too long members of these two orgs have been going to different parties, and many, many cross layer issues have arisen due to this.
> In my own case I had hoped (in dropping ietf) to be able to attend more IEEE 802.11 wg meetings - but I would really prefer to stay home and code for a while.
> I would be very supportive of someone(s) taking on the tasks of better grokking wifi and other non-ethernet media across both orgs both in the context of homenet and in aqm.
> PS While I have a good grip on cable media layers, I am lacking such on gpon...
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list