Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for draft-howard-homenet-routing-comparison-00.txt

[Don Sturek <[e-mail]>]

As one of the "silent" ones in Lee's note, I agree with what he is saying.

While homenet needs to define a home routing solution, the following are
the requirements for that solution from my perspective:
1)  Must be an established, existing, deployed routing protocol (or
heavily based on one).  We cannot afford to go through the process of
defining something new in homenet......
2)  Must be lightweight.   Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of Wi-Fi (or
other current home networking) router vendors in the group (or chipset
manufacturers for these solutions) but there is not a lot of spare
flash/RAM in many devices to support a large footprint solution.  It might
even be worth reaching out to some of these folks to get their opinions if
they aren't participating in homenet.....
3)  Must be auto configurable.     For nearly all device deployments (eg,
smart energy, video/audio distribution), it cannot take professional IT to
install, configure or update home routing networks.  Also, many devices
will be "headless" in that they cannot support user input.  Even having a
third device like a smart phone, tablet, etc. to configure a headless
device onto a home network requires software, documentation, etc.  If it
requires support then there is probably a major question whether it would
be deployed by manufacturers.

Hopefully the routing solution we choose meets the criteria above.......

Don




On 1/13/12 8:49 AM, "Howard, Lee" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ray Bellis [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:41 AM
>> To: Howard, Lee
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [homenet] New Version Notification for
>>draft-howard-homenet-routing-
>> comparison-00.txt
>>
>>
>> On 29 Dec 2011, at 22:33, Howard, Lee wrote:
>>
>> > I got tired of waiting for someone else to drive consensus on a
>>routing solution
>>
>> If there is consensus, it's for zOSPF, if only because no-one else
>>appears to believe strongly
>> enough in their preferred solution to write a draft about it.
>
>I don't think there's consensus on zOSPF.  I think there are a few strong
>advocates and a lot of pointed silence I did present an alternative
>(based on a draft), which had an equal mix of "interesting" and "bleah."
>
>The problem with zOSPF is that it doesn't meet our requirements.  It
>doesn't detect borders (unless the border happens to have another zOSPF
>router with the wrong password), it requires configuration (for the
>password), it doesn't handle walled gardens (a requirement being
>debated), it's not lightweight.
>
>I'm trying to be fair, and not just protect the PIO proposal because I
>proposed it.  It needs work.  Its biggest lack is the need for
>hierarchical addressing, but I think
>draft-baker-homenet-prefix-assignment solves that.  I don't want to see
>zOSPF adopted just because its advocates were louder.
>
>> I think Mark and I will need to make that call quite soon, but probably
>>not until the authors
>> of the architecture draft have incorporated the routing requirements
>>and other comments
>> since Taipei and put those into -01.
>
>My perception is that we have three people in favor of zOSPF, three
>supporting a PIO, seven each supporting a different alternative, and 30
>silent.
>
>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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet