Re: [homenet] other routing options

Randy Turner <rturner@amalfisystems.com> Tue, 22 November 2011 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rturner@amalfisystems.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7371F0C5C for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:49:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dPa9sLpb4hkp for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:49:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omr4.networksolutionsemail.com (omr4.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734391F0C56 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:49:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cm-omr8 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr4.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pAMMnGd3019048 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:49:16 -0500
Authentication-Results: cm-omr8 smtp.user=rturner@amalfisystems.com; auth=pass (CRAM-MD5)
X-Authenticated-UID: rturner@amalfisystems.com
Received: from [75.212.136.192] ([75.212.136.192:61758] helo=192.sub-75-212-136.myvzw.com) by cm-omr8 (envelope-from <rturner@amalfisystems.com>) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPSA (cipher=AES128-SHA) id 51/8C-04746-BE62CCE4; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:49:16 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Randy Turner <rturner@amalfisystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <DCC302FAA9FE5F4BBA4DCAD4656937791452BBC0CC@PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:49:25 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A7A4DFCE-C09D-49F7-A772-B3FC5F575CA1@amalfisystems.com>
References: <DCC302FAA9FE5F4BBA4DCAD4656937791452BBC0CC@PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com>
To: "Howard, Lee" <lee.howard@twcable.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [homenet] other routing options
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:49:18 -0000

"OSPF is too much protocol…"

That's how I felt until incredibly elaborate home net topologies were suggested -- but it still seems intuitively heavyweight for a "home" network.  If we do end up using OSPF, then maybe home networks are *not* simple as one would think, but rather a different instantiation of a complex routing scenario, just with "zeroconf" requirements.

R.

On Nov 22, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Howard, Lee wrote:

> Ray asked for people to post drafts for anything other than OSPF, because without an alternative, it will appear that we have consensus on OSPF.  I haven't posted a draft on RIPng, because it would just work the way it's designed.
> 
> A few people said  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-up-pio-00 is no better than RIP, and we already have RIP in home gateways.  Can any gateway vendor confirm whether RIPng is already in gateways?
> 
> Proposed alternatives are:
> * OSPFv3.  It's heavyweight for home routing.  We still need a way to find the border and inject default.  It could be used for DHCP-PD.
> * zOSPF.  It requires resurrecting work.  I don't how much work it needs, or how big the protocol is.
> * UP PIO.  It's new work, and requires work.  It's lightweight, and solves the border problem, but not addressing.
> * RIPng.  It's fairly lightweight, and it exists.  It solves only the routing problem.
> * MANEMO.  It requires resurrecting work, is pretty lightweight, and solves addressing and border problems.
> 
> If you argue that we should reuse existing protocols (per the architecture draft), your choices are OSPFv3 or RIPng.  I really don't like OSPFv3 in the home--it's too much protocol, though if someone can tell me about memory footprint, that would be helpful.
> 
> I also prefer draft-baker-homenet-prefix-assignment, so we don't need OSPF for addressing.
> 
> Any discussion?
> 
> 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
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>