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

Philippe Klein <> Fri, 27 March 2015 10:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16E01ACD19; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.209
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fJ6SQ7oel2md; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D6E1ACD17; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.11,478,1422950400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="60734024"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2015 03:14:38 -0700
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:03:49 -0700
Received: from ([fe80::65ea:1de7:41c4:e948]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:03:49 -0700
From: Philippe Klein <>
To: Philippe Klein <>, Randy Turner <>
Thread-Topic: [homenet] IEEE 1905.1 and 1905.1a
Thread-Index: AdBoDWZSPnl5yc7DReGXms97oiBgZgAUs9UAAAZh6YAAC6xecP//0QkAgAB1PeCAALJVAA==
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:03:48 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:03:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E3164327BB56B14B9162ABA2F0078A5B20D6B246SJEXCHMB06corpa_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:27:49 -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 10:03:53 -0000

Allow me to elaborate.

The whole hybrid home network that include Ethernet, coax, power-line and in the near future bridgeable wireless  links (see the 802.11ak draft) could be modeled as a collection of Ethernet P2P wires and pseudo P2P wires interconnected by L2 bridges.

These bridges could be “dumb”  and controlled by a single control plane aware of the whole network topology using  (IETF defined) constraint-based path computation to  service L3 with L2 paths that comply with the constrains (BW, Delay,….) provided by the L3 protocols.

This architecture will allow the deployment of zero configuration interconnection nodes into the home that full cover the home thru hybrid multi hops.
A  Wi-Fi  “light” AP could for example be connected any underlying technologies that reach a given location in the home (such Ethernet then coax then PLC or bridgeable wireless link…)

From: homenet [] On Behalf Of Philippe Klein
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:25 AM
To: Randy Turner
Cc: Hans Liu; Dave Taht; Claire Cheng; STARK, BARBARA H; HOMENET Working Group;
Subject: Re: [homenet] IEEE 1905.1 and 1905.1a

Sorry. Typo ☺. I meant a split model in which a  single CPE control multiple distributed CPs….

From: Randy Turner []
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:22 AM
To: Philippe Klein
Cc: Dave Taht; Hans Liu; HOMENET Working Group; STARK, BARBARA H; Claire Cheng;<>
Subject: Re: [homenet] IEEE 1905.1 and 1905.1a

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.

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<>