Re: [fun] Routing ?
Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Sun, 03 July 2011 05:54 UTC
Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: fun@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: fun@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56ED321F874F for <fun@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.213
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.213 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UnJonaC635Mi for <fun@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E7A521F874D for <fun@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=3110; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1309672449; x=1310882049; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=m8UvVv3jjV2hKjw87kvJ5YBZ3gOZjw7UuMPjoAUNPPA=; b=gkZfS8qeC+tfTQyaFs/phgRGNYBFvzXP1dhI7wxNgDl6cw8YW+ShSW0O +S8FCTgxwVpzxeVmHF+Sddte0RAMltRpV7X4kmx4RK29iVOPwVUBhwzsP 62trVfT6xjRMaSYA/lptq7uwQl7HJtSJTHYd10ItDvkpAnAKA0sZL1cUQ 4=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,466,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="288886162"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2011 05:54:09 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (rcdn-fluffy-8712.cisco.com [10.99.9.19]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p635s8ig015607; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 05:54:08 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <77E4CC08-18E7-4FD7-9034-1E5D0CC58373@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 23:54:07 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BA7FE506-EB5E-4A98-98AC-92C30DC85412@cisco.com>
References: <4E0AE3CF.2070504@piuha.net> <ECEBBF3B-B240-48DF-8A6B-F0566322F18D@cisco.com> <77E4CC08-18E7-4FD7-9034-1E5D0CC58373@cisco.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: fun@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [fun] Routing ?
X-BeenThere: fun@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "FUture home Networking \(FUN\)" <fun.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/fun>, <mailto:fun-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fun>
List-Post: <mailto:fun@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fun-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun>, <mailto:fun-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 05:54:10 -0000
On Jul 2, 2011, at 9:29 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Jul 1, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > >> I'm sure this is a spectacularly clueless question but, .... could someone say a bit more about why we need a routing protocol. > Jari's answer more or less convinced me on why the IETF was going to consider routing a good thing here. After I sent my questions, I saw your draft come out which provided even more info on use cases where routing would be needed. > Well, if you draw a circle around the network so small that it consists of exactly one router (figure 2 of draft-baker-fun-multi-router), I guess we don't. However, I'll note that (discussion on v6ops a few months back) existing IPv4 residential gateways for the most part support a routing protocol - usually RIPv2. If present residential gateways have that requirement for market reasons, it does seem reasonable to expect future ones to. > > I guess the question I would ask is not "why", but "given that there is evidently a present market requirement, why not". Can you explain to me why every residential gateway manufacturer save one - including Linksys - is wrong? In the mid 90s it may have been a useful feature and some devices shipped it. I'd be willing to bet that one of the reasons that vendors ship it in new things today is because the other vendors have it on their data sheets. I will note that on the NATs I have used, it is not enabled by default. I'll doubt that RIPv2 is the best routing protocol for just about anything yet I don't hear people kicking down the doors at linksys asking for other routing protocols. There may be some set of people that use it - I don't know who they are - it's clearly not widely used. I don't think the fact RIPv2 is widely shipped convinces me one way or the other that routing is needed. I find the types of arguments in your draft more convincing to where it will be needed and where it will not. I tend to think that FUN should focus on home networks that have zero manual configuration with the exception of setting the wireless key (and I'd even like to see that simplified). Sure more complex things will be useful too but the small percentage of homes that need the use the complex thing will figure it out - its the ones that need the simple thing that are the problem. I'll note that more and more home stuff seems to be support VLANs for guest type access and other segregation. I also wonder if we will see more equipment that will detect if it is on the edge of the home network or in the middle. If it is on the edge, it might act more like a NAT or FW while if it is in the middle, it might act more like a bridge. In the v4 space, NATs that do this have significantly improved how well things that do broadcast based discovery work - like UPnP. I forget the stats but I think Elliot was telling me a substantial fraction of recent UDP port allocations were for broadcast based discovery protocols.
- [fun] status of the homenet effort Jari Arkko
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Mark Townsley
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Weil, Jason
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Erik Kline
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Mark Townsley
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Jari Arkko
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Mark Townsley
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Soohong Daniel Park
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Jari Arkko
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Daniel Park
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Mark Townsley
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Robert Raszuk
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Mark Townsley
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Weil, Jason
- Re: [fun] [homegate] status of the homenet effort Ralph Droms
- Re: [fun] [homegate] status of the homenet effort JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
- Re: [fun] [homegate] status of the homenet effort Weil, Jason
- Re: [fun] [homegate] status of the homenet effort Mark Townsley
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Jari Arkko
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Robert Raszuk
- [fun] Routing ? Cullen Jennings
- Re: [fun] Routing ? Jari Arkko
- Re: [fun] Routing ? Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [fun] Routing ? JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
- Re: [fun] Routing ? Ralph Droms (rdroms)
- Re: [fun] Routing ? Cullen Jennings
- Re: [fun] Routing ? Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [fun] Routing ? Fred Baker
- Re: [fun] Routing ? Cullen Jennings
- Re: [fun] status of the homenet effort Joel Jaeggli