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

Lorenzo Colitti <> Tue, 27 October 2015 11:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579F21A871B for <>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bA3wnlzDGJ_H for <>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 465901A8718 for <>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ykdr3 with SMTP id r3so214058878ykd.1 for <>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=z2GIpFBkztv5GUI83gv9MGJUxbT/MvkukjybzrEkHHA=; b=Ejq36EXz9BKZpcVb8j77ceywSHaH3SeXpLvdyn7CDa618o28qk9NAFjFgWK1xAJGDe DbtuYliBBIqzQXzNaeTl7g19liR0JMklunXxxV1FAQljsvGyFji6CTsiP6HNxuMpnzJQ OGaJbt2UyS1u9jJhVb7aKosIacPMI298paIslgp5DA7yL66apHlO9jJ5PMahBTCPwIh9 tawTOvOqDgR/eXsEWxX/GNKI9QdNQr918BSDWRnMxovx2kEFZ5T9PxrVDaBPDywcQ6vg mv+imdoju8D/Z5xVIRBzTHqvwZ7nd7UfDWnc++0jZCGNfbYlwZvB2teTWoddDrOEKjHK 8GAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=z2GIpFBkztv5GUI83gv9MGJUxbT/MvkukjybzrEkHHA=; b=KGSY5wan1MyeRqXP7SjAbsfGruvVx/YSefrWiWTg731KDsnBd9Zu1Q6GIuh76hXR20 5GuExdWdHsESXLLt2t9P3l2uIUNn89uJmsqY4dvqZnXov/7enbkiV2CpbXrNCuFp7YK7 n2oj6X+ZLf9FxJ3qQSuP4wyl0mnoYDIXngvMqsrOLl3fqM7hQ6YMGSHImK1WvzTouLVm m+3tXKAyG+MwBBYmgZcqpmJ9qsIwBgJLvWlCr7dccFpOfXjJP3d0Ttxp3rSMIH/1p57D CUNUzEVrQ3AqIj8dNXczW0lgrYj5LhZ5ADFlm4npUY/huB1/Fc0c2tNLHySscOvxoxeD 0Wiw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn/pQs7s2+7tbD/hrxCh65VplXSql17e5aMnJNXLPs7hWRK5NC5l4P1Fm/7UGXk3/HJAban
X-Received: by with SMTP id u130mr32936995ywb.35.1445944742192; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:18:42 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Ray Bellis <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11492c10b99b530523143eaf
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Routing Design Team outcome and next steps
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:19:05 -0000

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 <> 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