Re: [homenet] draft-boutier-homenet-source-specific-routing-00

[Teco Boot <[e-mail]>]

With BRDP, I suggest to use whatever untouched routing protocol. I suggest to add another protocol, in my proposal something on top of RA. I do not understand your arguments against RA.

With whatever CHiRP we come up with, I don't think we face an installed base at homenets. Why bother backwards compatibility?

If we reuse an existing routing protocol and enforce routing to external networks using the source address, we must make sure homenet routers only have adjacency with compatible CHiRP routers. Many ways to enforce, update version is just one of them.

Support for university researchers would be my lowest priority :-) Don't take this wrong, I highly appreciate efforts on plug and play networks from everyone. But as often, options can be our enemy.

Teco

PS: From earlier mail, CHiRP: Common Homenet (interior) Routing Protocol
 

 
Op 11 jul. 2013, om 16:06 heeft Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> het volgende geschreven:

>> What would a current standard OSPF implementation do today?
>> I presume ignore the LSA's for source-specific routing, and cause a
>> black hole.
>> That's not so bad IMHO.
> 
> Agreed.  (Hence the use of a new TLV for source-specific routes in
> Matthieu's code, rather than a sub-TLV of the existing Update TLV --
> the new TLV is silently ignored by RFC 6126 routers.)
> 
>> Detect routing loops automatically so Y disables injecting the
>> synthesised default route when it sees packets bouncing?
>> If you're going to do that then you've had to update Y's code anyway, so
>> you may as well implement source-specific routing.
> 
> Fully agreed.  If we change the code in the first place, we might as
> well avoid the dodgy hack and go for the clean solution.
> 
>> Mandate all Homenet routers MUST support source-specific routing, and
>> update the version number of the routing protocol?
> 
> Please no.  Even if we forbid non-specific routers in Homenet, there's
> no reason to prevent enlightened amateurs from experimenting with
> hybrid networks.  (And what else is a university researcher than an
> enlightened amateur?)
> 
> Note that if we go with my suggestion of mobile nodes participating in
> the routing protocol (but not actually routing third-party packets),
> then we might hypothetically want to allow such nodes to use
> non-specific routing only -- or even to accept the default route only.
> Even if we don't want to go with this suggestion, we certainly don't
> want to prevent people from experimenting with such solutions.
> 
>> Advise users to move any legacy routers to the leaves of their network,
>> or remove them completely?
> 
> Right now I'd say the latter, but I'm still working on my opinion.
> 
> Please keep in mind, however, that if Homenet is successful, we'll be
> stuck with it for the next 20 years or so.  There's no saying what
> kind of networks will emerge over that timeframe, and we will curse
> our former selves for any impediments to compatible extensions we
> might put in the protocol.
> 
> -- Juliusz
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet