Re: [homenet] other routing options

On Nov 22, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Howard, Lee wrote:

> Ray asked for people to post drafts for anything other than OSPF, because without an alternative, it will appear that we have consensus on OSPF.  I haven't posted a draft on RIPng, because it would just work the way it's designed.

Makes sense to me.

> A few people said  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-up-pio-00 is no better than RIP, and we already have RIP in home gateways.  Can any gateway vendor confirm whether RIPng is already in gateways?
> 
> Proposed alternatives are:
> * OSPFv3.  It's heavyweight for home routing.  We still need a way to find the border and inject default.  It could be used for DHCP-PD.
> * zOSPF.  It requires resurrecting work.  I don't how much work it needs, or how big the protocol is.

The Internet Draft could be summarized as "Use OSPF, and <do this> for subnet allocation". If you don't like OSPF, you don't like zOSPF.

> * UP PIO.  It's new work, and requires work.  It's lightweight, and solves the border problem, but not addressing.
> * RIPng.  It's fairly lightweight, and it exists.  It solves only the routing problem.

To my way of thinking, as a default protocol for very small networks, you could do worse. I personally prefer OSPF, but I'm a snob :-)

> * MANEMO.  It requires resurrecting work, is pretty lightweight, and solves addressing and border problems.
> 
> If you argue that we should reuse existing protocols (per the architecture draft), your choices are OSPFv3 or RIPng.  I really don't like OSPFv3 in the home--it's too much protocol, though if someone can tell me about memory footprint, that would be helpful.

If you're comparing to RIPng, "a lot more". It's a more complex program, and it not only stores a route table, it stores a link state database. I'd have to go look at something to say this definitively, but I've heard the phrase "order of magnitude" in discussions like these.

> I also prefer draft-baker-homenet-prefix-assignment, so we don't need OSPF for addressing.

> Any discussion?
> 
> 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
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet