Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for draft-howard-homenet-routing-comparison-00.txt

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lee,

See inline. 

On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Howard, Lee wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ray Bellis [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:41 AM
>> To: Howard, Lee
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for draft-howard-homenet-routing-
>> comparison-00.txt
>> 
>> 
>> On 29 Dec 2011, at 22:33, Howard, Lee wrote:
>> 
>>> I got tired of waiting for someone else to drive consensus on a routing solution
>> 
>> If there is consensus, it's for zOSPF, if only because no-one else appears to believe strongly
>> enough in their preferred solution to write a draft about it.
> 
> I don't think there's consensus on zOSPF.  I think there are a few strong advocates and a lot of pointed silence I did present an alternative (based on a draft), which had an equal mix of "interesting" and "bleah."

First let's quit calling it zOSPF. It is OSPFv3 with auto-configuration. 

> 
> The problem with zOSPF is that it doesn't meet our requirements.  It doesn't detect borders (unless the border happens to have another zOSPF router with the wrong password),

While this should be part of the solution, I don't see this as something that it necessarily should be built into the routing protocol. 

> it requires configuration (for the password),

How does any protocol do authentication w/o a shared key? If you don't do authentication, you don't need a key. 

> it doesn't handle walled gardens (a requirement being debated),

I don't fully understand this requirement and how it would be handled w/o configuration. 

> it's not lightweight.

A commercial router implementation supporting all the features including OSPF TE and VPNs is certainly not lightweight. However, I just downloaded the latest quagga suite and it is only about 21K there. 

Acee-Lindems-iMac-2:ospf6d ealflin$ wc -l  *.[c.h] 
     875 ospf6_abr.c
      78 ospf6_abr.h
     787 ospf6_area.c
     129 ospf6_area.h
    1270 ospf6_asbr.c
      95 ospf6_asbr.h
    1027 ospf6_flood.c
      66 ospf6_flood.h
    1654 ospf6_interface.c
     154 ospf6_interface.h
    1578 ospf6_intra.c
     220 ospf6_intra.h
    1019 ospf6_lsa.c
     254 ospf6_lsa.h
     582 ospf6_lsdb.c
      98 ospf6_lsdb.h
     348 ospf6_main.c
    2548 ospf6_message.c
     149 ospf6_message.h
     945 ospf6_neighbor.c
     137 ospf6_neighbor.h
     322 ospf6_network.c
      50 ospf6_network.h
      85 ospf6_proto.c
     122 ospf6_proto.h
    1409 ospf6_route.c
     305 ospf6_route.h
     535 ospf6_snmp.c
      29 ospf6_snmp.h
     701 ospf6_spf.c
      94 ospf6_spf.h
     707 ospf6_top.c
      78 ospf6_top.h
     697 ospf6_zebra.c
      51 ospf6_zebra.h
    1892 ospf6d.c
     125 ospf6d.h
   21215 total

I'm not sure about commercial deployments, but I know this distribution has been used as the basis for network research. 

Thanks,
Acee 


> 
> I'm trying to be fair, and not just protect the PIO proposal because I proposed it.  It needs work.  Its biggest lack is the need for hierarchical addressing, but I think draft-baker-homenet-prefix-assignment solves that.  I don't want to see zOSPF adopted just because its advocates were louder.
> 
>> I think Mark and I will need to make that call quite soon, but probably not until the authors
>> of the architecture draft have incorporated the routing requirements and other comments
>> since Taipei and put those into -01.
> 
> My perception is that we have three people in favor of zOSPF, three supporting a PIO, seven each supporting a different alternative, and 30 silent.
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet