IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [fun] Routing ?

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Sun, 03 July 2011 03:29 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@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 382B511E811C for <fun@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 20:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.210, 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 aeODj+mDIp3Q for <fun@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 20:29:55 -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 A0EC711E80BC for <fun@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 20:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=893; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1309663795; x=1310873395; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HnMa3r4tMWhMbylrWqPhgc3fJfvyhNK6MOiX80WlJ1g=; b=GKlLFjdYn/MF+PrBfUdlefQMs7g3idPeJ1mrTMnwJFmM2JkqjnuYPXhx EDElcBte9iQVOUV9BVrtrZdo0ph3huSinoj7ju29CCBB8KDFwvlAB1+em rbDURAA4+rtMVFSKrJ+9Rq1X2njpSb9kXpmWv5FKE8Z309eatw72NPX+s s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,466,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="288856754"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2011 03:29:55 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com [10.32.244.218]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p633TsKX025270; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 03:29:55 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Sat, 02 Jul 2011 20:29:55 -0700
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com on Sat, 02 Jul 2011 20:29:55 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <ECEBBF3B-B240-48DF-8A6B-F0566322F18D@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 20:29:45 -0700
Message-Id: <77E4CC08-18E7-4FD7-9034-1E5D0CC58373@cisco.com>
References: <4E0AE3CF.2070504@piuha.net> <ECEBBF3B-B240-48DF-8A6B-F0566322F18D@cisco.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 03:29:56 -0000

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.

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?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email