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

Tim Chown <> Tue, 27 October 2015 13:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 997661A88EF for <>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 06:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.23
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id assNUMZfK56T for <>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 06:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71E761A88E6 for <>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 06:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t9RDDSDr004824; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:13:28 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 t9RDDSDr004824
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=201304; t=1445951613; bh=h5/uQR5UUJiC7rw/qi4WOYhGWvQ=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=ydRdWJD5pXEX3DMDXPW6CDqU6bawpNcgpUwXwhBxGpFI4in5qEbQHXTZnFzAxOBHz 2/rCuof5dOqAjjIpZXzFVyQcwlBaXy5nu6VMBgqSnE9UjHUalShOHVFu44zdI0CyQI NGb79RhGVOVVhR43htftEZr9RtEE1N3jbMnaoSRs=
Received: from ([2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:401]) by ( [2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:68da]) envelope-from <> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id r9QDDS0122435590hq ret-id none; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:13:32 +0000
Received: from [IPv6:2001:630:d0:ed23:6dda:ab7c:c35a:8d16] ([IPv6:2001:630:d0:ed23:6dda:ab7c:c35a:8d16]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t9RDDQ9H020421 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:13:26 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_71325DC5-5642-44DD-AB14-A53091C900D3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
From: Tim Chown <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:13:26 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|7e78e9275b6866ee6c53943217c12f96r9QDDS03tjc||>
References: <> <> <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=r9QDDS012243559000; tid=r9QDDS0122435590hq; client=relay,forged,no_ptr,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=3:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: t9RDDSDr004824
Archived-At: <>
Cc: HOMENET <>, Ray Bellis <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Routing Design Team outcome and next steps
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:13:53 -0000

On 27 Oct 2015, at 11:18, Lorenzo Colitti <> wrote:
> 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.

Indeed, well done to all concerned for reaching consensus on the way forward. It’s been a year since RFC7368 was published, so it’s great to see that we can now progress more specific items as Ray describes.


> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Ray Bellis < <>> wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> <>
> <>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list