Re: [homenet] Configuration must not be carried by the routing protocol

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Dave Taht <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Michael Richardson
    > <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >>
    >> Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> > Dear editors, dear group,
    >>
    >> > After the recent thread on this list, and a number of private mail
    >> > exchanges, I'm under the impression that there might be a consensus
    >> > that configuration information should not be carried over the routing
    >> > protocol.  In this mail, I argue that


    >>
    >> > configuration information should be carried by a protocol separate
    >> > from the routing protocol.
    >>
    >> I do not agree with this statement.

    > I have been on the fence on this issue for a very long time,
    > preferring to wait for running code, and the opportunity to run it.
    > Various problems, like the need for a small dhcpv6-pd capable server
    > have been met, but the prefix distribution issue and choice of a
    > routing protocol remains a sketchy one.

    > Do we have consensus that the majority of connections in the homenet
    > will be wireless?

Now that the gamers know about bufferbloat, they are realizing why none of
them use wireless for gaming.  my understanding is that 802.11ac will be even
worse for latency.

Gamers matter, because they replace their stuff sooner than anyone else.
It seems that many of telco/ipTV people have figured out that wireless
doesn't work for them.

So, tell me what a "connection" is... one assumes you don't mean TCP
connection...

    >> I believe that there are significant number of people who believe that
    >> configuration information *MUST* be disseminated at the same time as routing
    >> information.

    > I agree that there are a significant number of people that think these
    > two problems are in-inextricably interlinked.

Good, we agree that there are people who disagree with the original statement.

    > However a profusion of protocols exist, and having in a configuration
    > protocol the ability to announce and/or select a routing protocol
    > would be the most flexible.

I don't want this.
Then we get into MUST implement routing protocols, and SHOULD implement
routing protocols, etc...

    > I'd like to see a conversation centered on "what is needed for a
    > configuration protocol" for a homenet to flush out other requirements
    > besides prefix distribution. As one example which I pointed out last
    > week, in order for windows filesharing to work properly, wins server
    > information needs to be propagated.

I agree.

    >> Specifically, I think that we will have gaping security issues which will be
    >> very hard to close.

    > The security problem has not been addressed in zOSPF either.

I didn't claim that it was.

I am claiming that the decision, "can we trust this configuration
information" may be linked to "what route this this configuration information
arrive".

So, let me rephrase my claim.
I think if we have two protocols, and that they are implemented by seperate
daemons on a router, that they security linkages of state will not be
implemented.  Further, after we document the linkages that we need, we will
effectively have one protocol that runs on two ports using messages in two
different formats.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [