Re: [homenet] Routing Design Team outcome and next steps

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

Hear, hear!

We have spent far too much time arguing about this, and I am happy we have
a conclusion. A big thank you to the chairs for calling making this call. I
strongly agree that given the dynamics of the home networking market, there
needs to be one, and only one, routing protocol. I don't see anything else
working in the real world.

Personally, I happen to think that babel is the best choice, not so much
because of the protocol itself but because of the current availability of
solid, freely-licensed, small-footprint implementations. But IS-IS would
have been fine as well; so would OSPF, if there had been an implementation,
and even HNCP fallback would have fine. At the end of the day it doesn't
really matter which one we choose, as long as we choose one.

Let's hope that this will stop the arguments and we can all get on with
implementation and deployment.

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Ray Bellis <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> The Internet Area AD and Routing Area AD engaged with the Homenet WG, in
> coordination with the Chair of the Routing Design Team assigned to
> Homenet, have concluded the Design Team and issue the following statement:
>
> --8<--8<--
>
> Due to the evolving nature of Homenet a single clear and definitive
> recommendation cannot be provided by the Design Team as to which single
> routing protocol should be adopted. Several protocols could be shown to
> have equal utility in the implementation space. Sadly, it is clear that
> broad vendor support is not yet in place, and this introduces a
> potential dependency scenario. That is, a broad running code-base might
> not exist until a decision is made, and similarly an informed decision
> can not be made without the experience from a broad running code-base.
> It is the advice of the Design Team that Homenet encourage experimental
> trials, and therefore output experimental documents, of the routing
> options and results and review these and any temporary routing protocol
> selection at the appropriate time in the future when sufficient
> deployment experience exists.
>
> Collectively we would like to express our sincere thanks the Design Team
> participants for their efforts on a challenging topic.
>
> Russ White, DT Chair
> Alia Atlas, RTG Area AD
> Terry Manderson, INT Area AD
>
> --8<--8<--
>
> Notwithstanding the valiant efforts of the Design Team, the Chairs
> believe that there is WG consensus that a single “mandatory to
> implement” routing protocol must be chosen. We also believe that further
> delaying the direction here has long passed the point of diminishing
> returns.
>
> Based on the feedback received in Prague and on the WG mailing list
> thereafter, we are therefore declaring rough consensus that Babel[*]
> shall be the “mandatory to implement” routing protocol for Homenet
> routers, albeit only on an Experimental basis at this time.
>
> The aim in making this decision is to allow the non-routing-protocol
> aspects of Homenet to move forward in the near term, while allowing time
> for additional implementation, experimentation and specification. To
> that end, we solicit Experimental Internet Drafts to document
> Homenet-specific profiles of any applicable routing solution and to
> report results of any relevant experimentation and implementation.
>
> We expect that this decision will be revisited in a future Standards
> Track document based on specifications and running code available at
> that time.
>
> - Ray, Mark and Terry
>
> * Vendors looking to ship Homenet routers in the near term should refer
> to RFC 6126, RFC 7557, draft-boutier-babel-source-specific, and
> available open source implementations thereof for the routing protocol
> portion of the Homenet solution space.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>