Re: [homenet] Routing Design Team outcome and next steps

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Tue, 27 October 2015 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 466DB1A88DF for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 06:12:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 qneoGSqX5Z0L for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 06:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBB2E1A88E9 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 06:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6514B55; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:12:18 +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= 1445951536; bh=F2gnns3LIrt7cMKNjogKUUF60awy+o9GnrtLzvs3iv0=; b=c FcNkb2a3MfdATrpzptnRYvT5N4ypT/UuAwwkcGpuI3YuPI9JMJwWcoaS3088w6hc lF4DzUcpm4UafW21Xg0gc+dpAvhIIqakMbqtMmwTikvQ3wezMrHsUuV7byHvtA6t olBs0sMhcpv3PK/wHovWyOHrnER0hsU3/EBj5BZE3s=
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 hFeWwb3JXCV5; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:12:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:8640:1::7d24:58b6:b158:a83a] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:8640:1:0:7d24:58b6:b158:a83a]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF75440; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:12:16 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3r=RrGALqSw17X-gwokPJ_ffxA7RMcmT4i2pqhUbOL+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:12:16 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B3EF4C1C-021B-4D7E-8793-AA4FBDB4437D@steffann.nl>
References: <562F5B00.9010802@bellis.me.uk> <CAKD1Yr3r=RrGALqSw17X-gwokPJ_ffxA7RMcmT4i2pqhUbOL+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/qGezvV4NGZ-stg-eWGhmgBJjJKE>
Cc: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Subject: Re: [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 13:12:23 -0000

> Op 27 okt. 2015, om 12:18 heeft Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Hear, hear!
> 
> We have spent far too much time arguing about this, and I am happy we have a conclusion. A big thank you to the chairs for calling making this call. I strongly agree that given the dynamics of the home networking market, there needs to be one, and only one, routing protocol. I don't see anything else working in the real world.
> 
> Personally, I happen to think that babel is the best choice, not so much because of the protocol itself but because of the current availability of solid, freely-licensed, small-footprint implementations. But IS-IS would have been fine as well; so would OSPF, if there had been an implementation, and even HNCP fallback would have fine. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter which one we choose, as long as we choose one.
> 
> Let's hope that this will stop the arguments and we can all get on with implementation and deployment.

Well said, +1 to all of the above

Cheers,
Sander