IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] HNCP

Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org> Fri, 14 February 2014 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <cyrus@openwrt.org>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3321A02AF for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:29:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id clXxT17hbCjn for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:29:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chi.subsignal.org (cxd-2-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:ed::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC8F1A0158 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:29:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.24] (unknown [212.255.47.243]) by chi.subsignal.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 67451126183; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:30:38 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52FE6E9B.3060107@openwrt.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:29:31 +0100
From: Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
References: <58809B4D-CCE4-4DAC-9A1A-DD475584E65B@iki.fi> <6BF5B681-446C-4BCA-9B53-A05A9D4A9E38@townsley.net> <52FE480F.3030801@globis.net>
In-Reply-To: <52FE480F.3030801@globis.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/NyNisxJI-_IzCdGdsx0mYhiNIKg
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org Group" <homenet@ietf.org>, markus.stenberg@iki.fi, Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
Subject: Re: [homenet] HNCP
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:29:36 -0000

On 14.02.2014 17:45, Ray Hunter wrote:
>
> The biggest obvious question to me is why is it desirable to negotiate 
> a common Homenet routing protocol on the fly?
>
> Upside is that it avoids a heated debate for now. But what else does 
> it deliver?
I think your arguments about the downsides are valid and we have thought 
about them as well. However the current approach seems to be practical 
given the current situation that there is no common consensus about an 
IGP or about there even being an IGP that fits all use cases. Some 
people even argue that in some or many common cases an IGP might be 
overkill.

On top of that I even think if there would be a consensus in the near 
future then we still need autoconfiguration and source+dest routing 
standardized and adopted for that given IGP which will probably take 
quite some time as well.

So yes, there are limitations and hopefully this is not the final stance 
on this topic and at some point there is some kind of industry-consensus 
on an IGP. But honestly I don't see this happening any time soon.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email