[homenet] Routing Design Team outcome and next steps

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Tue, 27 October 2015 11:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 CCC861A8706 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:07:48 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 ynAoBrcZlTwo for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E47661A8704 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [46.227.151.81] (port=52529 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1Zr26R-0006s4-Jh (Exim 4.72) for homenet@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:07:43 +0000
To: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <562F5B00.9010802@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:07:44 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/kiI7pIYfpgT2Qrfx1VBAwng7_QY>
Subject: [homenet] Routing Design Team outcome and next steps
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:07:49 -0000

The Internet Area AD and Routing Area AD engaged with the Homenet WG, in
coordination with the Chair of the Routing Design Team assigned to
Homenet, have concluded the Design Team and issue the following statement:

--8<--8<--

Due to the evolving nature of Homenet a single clear and definitive
recommendation cannot be provided by the Design Team as to which single
routing protocol should be adopted. Several protocols could be shown to
have equal utility in the implementation space. Sadly, it is clear that
broad vendor support is not yet in place, and this introduces a
potential dependency scenario. That is, a broad running code-base might
not exist until a decision is made, and similarly an informed decision
can not be made without the experience from a broad running code-base.
It is the advice of the Design Team that Homenet encourage experimental
trials, and therefore output experimental documents, of the routing
options and results and review these and any temporary routing protocol
selection at the appropriate time in the future when sufficient
deployment experience exists.

Collectively we would like to express our sincere thanks the Design Team
participants for their efforts on a challenging topic.

Russ White, DT Chair
Alia Atlas, RTG Area AD
Terry Manderson, INT Area AD

--8<--8<--

Notwithstanding the valiant efforts of the Design Team, the Chairs
believe that there is WG consensus that a single “mandatory to
implement” routing protocol must be chosen. We also believe that further
delaying the direction here has long passed the point of diminishing
returns.

Based on the feedback received in Prague and on the WG mailing list
thereafter, we are therefore declaring rough consensus that Babel[*]
shall be the “mandatory to implement” routing protocol for Homenet
routers, albeit only on an Experimental basis at this time.

The aim in making this decision is to allow the non-routing-protocol
aspects of Homenet to move forward in the near term, while allowing time
for additional implementation, experimentation and specification. To
that end, we solicit Experimental Internet Drafts to document
Homenet-specific profiles of any applicable routing solution and to
report results of any relevant experimentation and implementation.

We expect that this decision will be revisited in a future Standards
Track document based on specifications and running code available at
that time.

- Ray, Mark and Terry

* Vendors looking to ship Homenet routers in the near term should refer
to RFC 6126, RFC 7557, draft-boutier-babel-source-specific, and
available open source implementations thereof for the routing protocol
portion of the Homenet solution space.