Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 11 August 2017 13:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 25E9D13218C for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 06:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 CHOodEQRmehV for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 06:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22a.google.com (mail-qk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33887132642 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 06:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id d136so20376103qkg.3 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 06:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=vnp/VYecB1MD9P9KVdK75cJNMoXIEa96aZtjr92nnYQ=; b=HDhlWhdO68KEhE5QiDTukFzUaSw8LKO3PcrgSIjNVfQqcFRQ6kcErJDxxSQUnTAftH Yiv9TtNhEtx+syZ+yPYaB0Ijkjt9095ILoRvvvjFXwTx1ANOomtb8LUunAfGupVb3C36 hcGpv+VjExQxNmDIC/pnIHAMsrRktHjaWUWpWrErGybgHCTYiIgMD7wHt83CqkbRUPMb AlM/pV8MTXQUFdvUrLT3YSFO/fkx5s6dKdg9Jn8LvdTUHUoRY22cl69ThUv0MB2C9a2W pDw7qlph1b2pokCuWspAPJ6z2WRkN/qp3OMqBg1F/xm7LQTzvUYLY8IXogyuECgC+pMi diWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=vnp/VYecB1MD9P9KVdK75cJNMoXIEa96aZtjr92nnYQ=; b=cOlnTNVzIPIXSSQtOMsDKXL9T7FBGgv7h7T7o8LzmW1XeJGed7Ue3DbSHW0N8XYsNm VUwB/X6QoVjjy2qZmFwAG63vD6URStbC5MIH46iH1FfnFgSzTo5wJbLyNYBq4yr2Ggii XJoFDR2e9C7fBnRbbEihOiO7CEbYpFWbqp32kGtNPK1QHUorEpvYIkSJH8IokCJSPjX7 6Lrv01cl1wS7VoXcYxJvX2ghuNA4NDMlfdzzY+opmwzJyd188JplhtYnTew+dW1eeHkJ 5kTFBkltltSrmfvMRDKvQjEFipSOOmfhyoB+eL1+ydA+otbDdp9+iRcqwvw0YQaA3vYR bvxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5hrDOb+ZfeDg0A7cdJo+hT2O/fvEqtg0kex9CMY0WbgvD7m+cLo 9ZKBnI6OjgaJlbH+aUkJ4Q==
X-Received: by 10.55.95.196 with SMTP id t187mr18035855qkb.255.1502458487264; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 06:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.30.153] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d125sm515163qkg.43.2017.08.11.06.34.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Aug 2017 06:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <7E8390B5-9048-4783-B17F-6C9EA5610887@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7E74F83C-F62F-442E-9D62-F0728B992FC3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 09:34:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <874ltez1wg.fsf@toke.dk>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk>
References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DBF5904@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <20170810203843.xq7wxdxp27vqt4pz@mx4.yitter.info> <87wp6byvw5.fsf@toke.dk> <A9C8CA05-54A0-4160-B2F0-645744BD259E@fugue.com> <87poc3yt3d.fsf@toke.dk> <22E4B7B8-317F-4CBB-8536-D0AB345B0837@fugue.com> <87h8xez9ys.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPt1N1m+218+FX_G+2W-msDWmxP8XXMKF9S0faTeCBnEEzk1uw@mail.gmail.com> <877eyaz2jm.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPt1N1m5nVGD-y2VrbkoTEPTs4qF98oRxGuvd-Has1yzuS0fmg@mail.gmail.com> <874ltez1wg.fsf@toke.dk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/anqIj_jssCpjlXDpLLWJDBu7Tb0>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA
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: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 13:34:56 -0000

On Aug 11, 2017, at 9:09 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
> Because I'm not convinced the added implementation complexity is worth
> it; so yeah, the last one I guess...

This is a refrain I've heard from you, Juliusz and Markus, which I actually find a bit disturbing: the desire not to really solve the problem because it's not trivially easy.   That's not the charter of this working group.   The reason we chartered this working group was _explicitly_ to study the problem carefully, to see what we needed to do to solve it well, to describe what that was, and to do it.

My experience both in doing math when I was a math student, and in doing computer science now that I'm a computer geek, is that often times a shortcut solution to a real problem winds up being harder than a good solution in the long run.   Sure, you saved a little time with that shortcut, but the long term result was that you didn't actually solve the problem, and now you have a brick that you have to fix in-place, instead of a green field where you can do what needs to be done without continuing to support the old solution.

Think about the routing problem.   We need source-specific routes.  We're extending babel to add them. Why is that? Couldn't we have just relied on happy eyeballs to eliminate the bad routes?

As for the MPvD problem, you say that you'd like to avoid the complexity, but have you actually explored what the complexity looks like?   Have you asked the Android folks and the Apple folks why they are interested in (and in some cases, already have) put support for this into their devices?

I've attached a picture of the router I'm using for my development work on this (the second, really tiny board is the serial console interface I'm using to debug).   It's got 8G of flash, 2G of RAM, a 1.2G 4-core arm64 CPU, gigabit ethernet and a fast I/O bus for both wired and wireless network interfaces.   It cost me US$24.99.   This is more than capable of supporting the complexity we are talking about, which I don't think is really that much complexity anyway.

Are you targeting a cheaper, less capable device than this?   If so, can you talk about why you think that's important for Homenet?