Re: [homenet] Next Steps for Routing Protocol

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
<jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:
>> This included technical discussion around a partially unanticipated

I have always felt that we needed to have something that could route
packets as best as possible based on conditions (and in particular
transport configuration information) across many disparate link layers
- homeplug, MoCa, 802.11, 802.11ad, 802.14, 6lowpan, VPNs, and sharks
with lasers. (https://twitter.com/RalfMuehlen/status/533414954167070720/photo/1
).

While full compliance with rfc2549 is not required, wires as we knew
them are going the way of the dodo, and already have, in most homes
and small businesses.

>> requirement for HNCP to support a stub network with a gateway that
>> doesn't have sufficient resources to run a routing protocol.

Could someone describe what sort of resources these gateways (nest, I
assume) actually have? - What OS they run, how much ram and flash is
on them, is there virtual memory, etc?

Are there devices in this category that can be hacked on? I am
reminded of the dnssec debate put to rest by merely producing a proof
of concept on an ancient cpe... I mean, babel, for example, is like,
61k, on mips with the sole dependency on libc. Other daemons, like
pimd are in the same size category.

>
> Mark,
>
> Could you please spell out the requirements for a stub-only
> implementation?  Do you expect the stub router to hold the full routing
> table, or just two routes (connected network and default route)?
>
> Is there interest in a stub-only implementation of Babel?  Should it be
> a standalone daemon, or should it be integrated in the HNCP daemon?
>
> -- Juliusz
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

-- 
Dave Täht

thttp://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcoming_Talks