Re: [homenet] homenet-babel-profile: determining link type

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Mon, 20 November 2017 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 A0E5912DDD2 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:53:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 V1iaKer1Rgbw for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:53:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2E44129A97 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:53:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE924A; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:53:00 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date :date:in-reply-to:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1511200377; bh=EfjjcIjmRS1yCV8Vd/BbAgKgTjwGZvvUtMh9+DTx1Y0=; b=P KVlTNOd4mmPTGFQ2aUK3Qts+0qRv/Jh12NvXR0wmHo+CEHqzuvPWvHv+usIiZclT RvNtFlVMccw9l9M5KMxN2GL+vp4KzMtfogKP9eRMr7746BLRz4XLNsUdpmX6B98Y 7tBQVZZ1H2h1BIYxIDWA8LfIu3HIvHEyNEZtWCTRtg=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 5kz7wQ23TitE; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:52:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a301:1000:1870:840f:3342:39a3] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a301:1000:1870:840f:3342:39a3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 289DB49; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:52:57 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\))
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DCBBF72@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:52:55 +0100
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FBF76FB0-B4B9-4E67-A6B0-150FA5A54880@steffann.nl>
References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DCBBF72@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/ZoMxCZu7JhH_2vmIhrqYug4KPlM>
Subject: Re: [homenet] homenet-babel-profile: determining link type
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:53:04 -0000

Hi Barbara,

> Should we really only suggest that the router dynamically probe the quality of wireless links? Or would it make sense to suggest dynamic probing of all links, because assuming the entire path between 2 routers uses a single physical layer technology may not be a good assumption?

Good point. My gut feeling is that the percentage of cases where that assumption would be wrong is small but significant enough that we should consider probing all links.

Anybody with better (=any) data?

Cheers,
Sander