Re: [homenet] How many people have installed the homenet code?

Markus Stenberg <> Tue, 26 April 2016 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09EB212D50E for <>; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.821
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WUJcd5mh3nhV for <>; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F352E120047 for <>; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
RazorGate-KAS: Status: not_detected
RazorGate-KAS: Rate: 0
RazorGate-KAS: Envelope from:
RazorGate-KAS: Version: 5.5.3
RazorGate-KAS: LuaCore: 80 2014-11-10_18-01-23 260f8afb9361da3c7edfd3a8e3a4ca908191ad29
RazorGate-KAS: Lua profiles 69136 [Nov 12 2014]
RazorGate-KAS: Method: none
Received: from poro.lan ( by ( (authenticated as stenma-47) id 5702409101DA771D; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 19:52:00 +0300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Markus Stenberg <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 19:51:59 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <20160425141017.1572996e@envy.e5.y.home> <> <> <>
To: Rich Brown <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Tore Anderson <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] How many people have installed the homenet code?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:52:07 -0000

On 26.4.2016, at 16.34, Rich Brown <> wrote:
> Ahhh... This is exactly the kind of advice I was looking for...
>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Markus Stenberg <> wrote:
>>> On 26.4.2016, at 15.09, Rich Brown <> wrote:
>>> Thanks for this info. I have two primary interests here.
>>> 1) I would like to stop farbling around with configuring subnets in my home. :-)
>>> 2) With that knowledge in hand, I'll update the OpenWrt wiki, and include a procedure for getting the developer feed if necessary.
>>> This all sounds pretty straightforward - and that the CC build is a good place to start. Thanks again!
>> Just as an advance warning, the CC version has some bugs;
> Are these bugs important? What problems would someone see? Or would those problems mostly affect people who're skilled in the project? As stated above, my goal is to have a set of clear instructions that “just work".

There are now 3 different hnetd versions in the wild, actually all slightly incompatible;

- (source-only) hnetd/master/HEAD: follows RFC7787/7788

- hnetd in openwrt-routing/master (DD): follows last draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-10

- hnetd in openwrt-routing/for-15-05 (CC): follows draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-08 

Someday when Steven has time we should probably bump both CC source and binary to hnetd/master/HEAD, following the RFC ports/TLV #s. 
DD I didn’t dare to bump as there seems to be some issue in OpenWrt trunk with the PCP firewall hole-punching (automated system tests with VMs fail as hole fails to appear; TBD why, but it happened to me last week).

Current version in openwrt-routing/master has minor bug or two; CC one has bunch of them, but despite those it probably mostly works. It does pass our automated system testcases, but there is one corner-case-ish crash and some endianness/IPv4 things that are not covered by them and that were fixed ‘later’ pre-current-DD-version.

> Plus, I realize I have a third goal:
> 3) That people have a good experience the first time they try Homenet. (This makes using trunk/DD questionable - maybe the hnetd in trunk works great, but if they install a build of DD on a bad day, it’ll contribute to a bad experience, even though it's not hnetd's "fault".)

trunk/DD is definitely questionable with that goal. In general, I have mostly suggested just using CC for now.

> So my question for the considered wisdom of this group:
> Is stock CC "good enough"? Or would CC+development version of hnetd be the best combination? If the latter, I will work toward those instructions. (And I may take Tore up on his offer to push a feed of the newer packages to Github…)

Probably the correct solution would be to just bump routing 15.05/master to hnetd/master/HEAD, as now the multicast address/port# should stay same and protocol also not change backward incompatibly going forward. While I can do it in the github repository (if I feel lucky enough that it works, see above note about PCP but I think it occurs only in DD which I do not care about that much), I am not sure how to get it to next CC binaries.

I am somewhat leery of pushing _anything_ until I have setup to test it out though, so this might wait until I get that Turris thingy :-)

Until that, I recommend just using CC and living with the bug or three or half dozen it has (git log is amusing reading :p).