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

Terry Manderson <> Wed, 28 October 2015 02:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296A01B41FB for <>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.431
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lQsg95QYyJPz for <>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12EA81B41F8 for <>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:55:11 -0700
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:55:11 -0700
From: Terry Manderson <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>, Ray Bellis <>
Thread-Topic: [homenet] Routing Design Team outcome and next steps
Thread-Index: AQHREKfFQcgaumNno0quk4BljHuYEZ5/poIAgAGtRgA=
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 02:55:11 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3528881708_4552622"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 02:55:17 -0000

I'd like to chime in here, wearing the responsible AD fez, and hopefully
add some transparency.

This decision comes from the following motivations:
	1) Fixing the WG dysfunction, it could not continue. (I'd say everyone
knew that one!!)
	2) Get folk working toward making more robust implementations and getting
real world experience, with the hope of vendors diving in and developing
their own product and institutional knowledge.
	3) As it's an EXPERIMENTAL direction, and WILL be reviewed prior to
solidifying in PS; Provide every opportunity for the parties interested in
standardising the available routing protocol options to do so. I urge all
who are interested to run to your nearest RTG Area AD (hint: look at the
IETF agenda for RTG Area office hours)
	4) Understand, at a deep technical level, why routing protocol X IS the
'best fit' with thorough experimentation and documentation.

The positive remarks I've seen on the list so far suggest that we are over
the dysfunctional hump (yay!). I'm looking forward to seeing awesome work
come from the HOMENET WG, and will relish the day I have vendors pushing a
HOMENET device at me.

I'll leave it to your very capable chairs to steward the rest of the
discussion and agenda on this topic.

Cheers, and see you all next week!


On 27/10/2015 9:18 pm, "homenet on behalf of Lorenzo Colitti"
< on behalf of> wrote:

>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
>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:
>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
>Notwithstanding the valiant efforts of the Design Team, the Chairs
>believe that there is WG consensus that a single ³mandatory to
>implement² routing protocol must be chosen. We also believe that further
>delaying the direction here has long passed the point of diminishing
>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 ³mandatory to implement² 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