From nobody Sat May 31 04:41:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A2A1A0870 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 04:41:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.852 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9OH5ykT-iB9p for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 04:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3246D1A079F for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 04:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BES69915; Sat, 31 May 2014 11:41:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sat, 31 May 2014 12:41:00 +0100 Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sat, 31 May 2014 12:41:36 +0100 Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.207]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sat, 31 May 2014 19:41:34 +0800 From: "Liubing (Leo)" To: "homenet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet Thread-Index: Ac98xUMpLqXiWTFfSveWtIylTxqZWQ== Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 11:41:33 +0000 Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.132] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/mNQnOCM8fz0ps9KmKMcuqtNTd98 Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson , "bruno.decraene@orange.com" , "ian.farrer@telekom.de" Subject: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 11:41:47 -0000 Hi all, We have an ISIS auto-configuration draft under developing in ISIS WG (draft= -liu-isis-auto-conf). Since Homenet/SME networks are one of the main scenar= ios our draft targets at, and we already have an OSPF-autoconf mechanism av= ailable (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig), during the isis meeting some p= eople raised the question whether Homenet WG want to support multiple IGP a= uto-configuration mechanisms. I checked the meeting minutes of the last Homenet meeting. And found the st= atus of the issue is: - WG had decided to have both a configuration protocol (HNCP) + a routing p= rotocol - WG hasn't decided to have only one routing protocol or two, or even N... - it seems only one routing protocol has more support May I ask a couple of questions: 1) Is it necessary to enforce only one routing protocol? If HNCP is adopted, I guess multiple routing protocols could be easily supp= orted ? I think it might be more flexible if homenet router support multiple routin= g protocols. Is there any harm?=20 (Note: supporting multiple routing protocols here doesn't mean they need ru= n at the same time, just more choices.) 2) If we decide to have only one, then what is the criteria for protocol se= lection? Look forward to your comments. Many thanks. Best regards, Bing From nobody Sat May 31 05:35:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C3B1A0894 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 05:35:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.194 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ONGpbuXZk2f for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 05:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6758C1A08D7 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 05:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 178793A; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:35:03 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JC8YyStkEk1X; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:35:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from macpro.10ww.steffann.nl (macpro.10ww.steffann.nl [37.77.56.75]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC46237; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:35:00 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.3\)) From: Sander Steffann In-Reply-To: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 14:35:00 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <502D7318-264B-4C08-ABB8-7069BCC4E01E@steffann.nl> References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> To: "Liubing (Leo)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.3) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/F-W9sACjuvcO09o6hc8t2nQ7MPE Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson , "bruno.decraene@orange.com" , "homenet@ietf.org" , Ian Farrer Subject: Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 12:35:10 -0000 Hi, > (Note: supporting multiple routing protocols here doesn't mean they = need run at the same time, just more choices.) No, it does mean that everybody suddenly has to implement multiple = protocols. In a homenet devices must *just work*. Burdening the home = user with such choices doesn't make sense. And it means that when there = are multiple protocols to choose from the devices will have to implement = all of them. Having multiple protocols to support makes the implementors = work much harder. This is a VERY bad idea. Sander From nobody Sat May 31 05:42:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0C11A08C0 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 05:42:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ofbX2Do50ZY for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 05:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F9231A08B3 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 05:42:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: homenet@ietf.org Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0383360418 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:42:40 +0200 (CEST) X-SpaceNet-Relay: true Received: from moebius3.space.net (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C647560152 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:42:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 23666 invoked by uid 1007); 31 May 2014 14:42:39 +0200 Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 14:42:39 +0200 From: Gert Doering To: "Liubing \(Leo\)" Message-ID: <20140531124239.GS46558@Space.Net> References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> X-NCC-RegID: de.space User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/ISZxZP9KEoptGq7Dq4ayGis5LmQ Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson , "bruno.decraene@orange.com" , "homenet@ietf.org" , "ian.farrer@telekom.de" Subject: Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 12:42:47 -0000 Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 11:41:33AM +0000, Liubing (Leo) wrote: > 1) Is it necessary to enforce only one routing protocol? > If HNCP is adopted, I guess multiple routing protocols could be easily supported ? > I think it might be more flexible if homenet router support multiple routing protocols. Is there any harm? > (Note: supporting multiple routing protocols here doesn't mean they need run at the same time, just more choices.) "More protocols" means "more interoperability testing" and "more combinations of vendor products that suddenly do not interoperate, even if they should". So I'd keep the list of supported protocols as small as possible - and stick to IP protocols. ISIS is great for ISP environments, but does not nicely adapt to a unix environment where the kernel has no idea about ISO/OSI protocols and you have to do everything via raw sockets. Which would be a fairly typical environment for a CPE router. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From nobody Sat May 31 06:11:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F8F91A08B1 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 06:11:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.485 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yQ53tSqWrAXv for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 06:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com [76.96.32.253]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F9091A08A4 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 06:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.56.114]) by copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id C7WM3M1.135359400; Sat, 31 May 2014 07:11:30 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB18.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d85d:4248:14e8:f24e]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::bdc4:5b5c:ee33:b058%16]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Sat, 31 May 2014 09:11:30 -0400 From: "Leddy, John" To: Gert Doering , "Liubing (Leo)" Thread-Topic: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet Thread-Index: Ac98xUMpLqXiWTFfSveWtIylTxqZWQAKhJOA///FAIA= Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 13:11:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20140531124239.GS46558@Space.Net> In-Reply-To: <20140531124239.GS46558@Space.Net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326 x-originating-ip: [68.87.16.248] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/9lJWYajjAAwoycKrV3cePazKTKk Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson , "bruno.decraene@orange.com" , "homenet@ietf.org" , "ian.farrer@telekom.de" Subject: Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 13:11:46 -0000 In the past, and rumblings now, there was some push to enable ISIS over IPV6. Independent of Homenet, I think the investigation will continue. John On 5/31/14, 8:42 AM, "Gert Doering" wrote: >Hi, > >On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 11:41:33AM +0000, Liubing (Leo) wrote: >> 1) Is it necessary to enforce only one routing protocol? >> If HNCP is adopted, I guess multiple routing protocols could be easily >>supported ? >> I think it might be more flexible if homenet router support multiple >>routing protocols. Is there any harm? >> (Note: supporting multiple routing protocols here doesn't mean they >>need run at the same time, just more choices.) > >"More protocols" means "more interoperability testing" and "more >combinations >of vendor products that suddenly do not interoperate, even if they >should". > >So I'd keep the list of supported protocols as small as possible - and >stick >to IP protocols. ISIS is great for ISP environments, but does not nicely >adapt to a unix environment where the kernel has no idea about ISO/OSI >protocols and you have to do everything via raw sockets. Which would be >a fairly typical environment for a CPE router. > >Gert Doering > -- NetMaster >--=20 >have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > >SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard >Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. >Grundner-Culemann >D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >homenet@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From nobody Sat May 31 06:20:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35841A08BC for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 06:20:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JLBxInA4Zmp3 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 06:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A33A41A08A4 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 06:20:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: homenet@ietf.org Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4975660A8E for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 15:20:31 +0200 (CEST) X-SpaceNet-Relay: true Received: from moebius3.space.net (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E29060418 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 15:20:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 29377 invoked by uid 1007); 31 May 2014 15:20:30 +0200 Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 15:20:30 +0200 From: Gert Doering To: "Leddy, John" Message-ID: <20140531132030.GV46558@Space.Net> References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20140531124239.GS46558@Space.Net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6yNyFiKUPZDcik8u" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-NCC-RegID: de.space User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/ct3IIlXpAOFn3h85XCH4g40XuQs Cc: "ian.farrer@telekom.de" , Mikael Abrahamsson , "Liubing \(Leo\)" , "bruno.decraene@orange.com" , "homenet@ietf.org" , Gert Doering Subject: Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 13:20:39 -0000 --6yNyFiKUPZDcik8u Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 01:11:31PM +0000, Leddy, John wrote: > In the past, and rumblings now, there was some push to enable ISIS over > IPV6. >=20 > Independent of Homenet, I think the investigation will continue. So, then, we'll have one link-state protocol that runs over IPv6 and can transport opaque LSAs for arbitrary address families, and one other link-state protocol that runs over IPv6 and can transport opaque LSAs for arbitrary address families. Yes, this is quite obviously going to be a big win. Gert Doering -- NetMaster --=20 have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 --6yNyFiKUPZDcik8u Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIVAwUBU4nXHt9WwGXkzn/FAQKrIw//fl/3TJR1rQVvszN2wTZIsKJr+uCwUwnC 9r40s3tP3MHXMpKLJvbMdsDE0vNPOO8GrwkQR9S5G2hTqfnyrJ1pCnrpAql5McT+ GyHSMqAw0K0M5J5WKs4VyCiMpx89RyzQPFPx6Emlw/2SxR/Qb8uPBaWYCyep7GuX oNIOABaXvMuTGhcDjThSQPTTvv5WaU9e8KH6gMK3JS70ED11/74V8XHd1lsXq+2D mRllAreBR3La5e75E2Z5RPu3rYhSaZGxTf2bQSNMiQJYnuuz8vgihTQxH+zNY0sF ttu+UebrkQHPb4WMQRgT/t7VEIZsM28ORzinhm4NwEcU4g87oPFf+HSvVLa9+EeI 05NxOV/wCv/yx+f61s9guDCrwN0a6w5+j/zAnAtXkW6v2UR8b2+W69W7fnYSYBNx F3Jm7E+8GF5zUEw+Yz8Ye0TVvaOP/X1x4vGHj1RJyAc7q2O9ot1i4n2itW5H94tf 0oFrZLky6gzF/66PBT8mTJYG7CQUnezTuPAypxUeG+KQ2XO7/TpqCZgBW9lyiBdY yj1nTUgs682faanwg1CTG3DCXmReXZWcKRRrVFNjJ4TzX9weGgCZPDWPm0Jiy1DK eJhVfVfS+fbv/Y/OuwN5Yultsq0IpZJGPrJppU73YGrAXjCJMJNOL6NLq6QDJLuj eatqZ0ClIR4= =bfyx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6yNyFiKUPZDcik8u-- From nobody Sat May 31 09:33:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4421A0021 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 09:33:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id reeWznu7lbzI for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 09:33:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67F8B1A0016 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 09:33:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8CCE9A1; Sat, 31 May 2014 18:33:45 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1401554025; bh=6Ie2yr8naNzc6s0zJvKVhQRrNzO5qsS1lOJdDsi9KDQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=AooBG3GE5tzPTdr12ADjdjvhHu8oJfB3YTpvYl+20kptWtf7yk5SxWTGw4wZk3r6Q AN8wEFDBfWeZktWJuaxDBq5lZnkK+ouEEqznpufizScUL7WM6h/pcxNJSVbgJXCNcZ Re1HEBf8zrfTBSOwmxPIxeH4GUIyx/c3IGStKl2A= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855A99F; Sat, 31 May 2014 18:33:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 18:33:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Gert Doering In-Reply-To: <20140531124239.GS46558@Space.Net> Message-ID: References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20140531124239.GS46558@Space.Net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/VQCI-epsBwZHFABuT5iNT_MAqeI Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 16:33:56 -0000 On Sat, 31 May 2014, Gert Doering wrote: > So I'd keep the list of supported protocols as small as possible - and > stick to IP protocols. ISIS is great for ISP environments, but does not > nicely adapt to a unix environment where the kernel has no idea about > ISO/OSI protocols and you have to do everything via raw sockets. Which > would be a fairly typical environment for a CPE router. This is actually a feature, the fact that ISIS doesn't require IPv6 to be up and running before it can get itself started and you know the topology of the home. How one values this feature is obviously up to each individual. Oh, and the other email you sent. Irony doesn't help make your point. That email was quite confusing about what point you were actually trying to make. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se From nobody Sat May 31 11:03:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D1A1A0068 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 11:03:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rxkfcr7_oR18 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 11:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3E791A0063 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 11:03:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: homenet@ietf.org Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E7E1603FB for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 20:03:43 +0200 (CEST) X-SpaceNet-Relay: true Received: from moebius3.space.net (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E67560152 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 20:03:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 70879 invoked by uid 1007); 31 May 2014 20:03:43 +0200 Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 20:03:43 +0200 From: Gert Doering To: Mikael Abrahamsson Message-ID: <20140531180343.GZ46558@Space.Net> References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20140531124239.GS46558@Space.Net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7MD0VOBR9BkgZ/an" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-NCC-RegID: de.space User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/5l-onfiCYtwZevS2MiEn8HPlCQ4 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" , Gert Doering Subject: Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 18:03:52 -0000 --7MD0VOBR9BkgZ/an Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 06:33:45PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2014, Gert Doering wrote: >=20 > > So I'd keep the list of supported protocols as small as possible - and= =20 > > stick to IP protocols. ISIS is great for ISP environments, but does no= t=20 > > nicely adapt to a unix environment where the kernel has no idea about= =20 > > ISO/OSI protocols and you have to do everything via raw sockets. Which= =20 > > would be a fairly typical environment for a CPE router. >=20 > This is actually a feature, the fact that ISIS doesn't require IPv6 to be= =20 > up and running before it can get itself started and you know the topology= =20 > of the home. Uh, what? So the benefit of ISIS (over ISO/OSI transport) in the home woul= d=20 be "you can have IPv4 in your homenet, without having IPv6"? I truly can't= =20 see a reason why this would be useful in the time frame when this would be ready - and it's also out of scope of what the homenet architecture concern= s=20 itself with. Which, as far as I understand, is "make IPv6 work right, and= =20 do not damage IPv4", while excluding IPv4-only scenarios. > How one values this feature is obviously up to each individual. >=20 > Oh, and the other email you sent. Irony doesn't help make your point. Tha= t=20 > email was quite confusing about what point you were actually trying to=20 > make. Then it was quite clear: I can't see a point in doing protocol work to solve something in a fashion that would be very very very similar to an already-existing protocol that has mature implementations. Gert Doering -- NetMaster --=20 have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 --7MD0VOBR9BkgZ/an Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIVAwUBU4oZf99WwGXkzn/FAQK6Fg//UNil+MLxqIm+6Xh618ExOAq84LtOhbNp BKeRVYoqUbHCEDobQD5DkaajwKv3Pl7K0z2ZJefdIpvFwD5eTUlSJkxlrDItksGb i6UC9iiuFcM9DiJ+024bRs4eANb7psqPIKc5d+E9UJqmS1D4XM7uY/rb9g1DBWIy s3ebmfdk7upvHdRGo9uNgj5m6ZTduSICt/5VhIfCRKvBSbCaNqDGkBuq4Fo8Z9tq QiOvRLhYLayPtR2TtabeWcCoThgknbsmKp7HFbKi91KdHt8wbk357eW/Hjhz0cQt +SzviuBif3pVmCNypDi3dbdFrhKFJ8xHi2aeqrj5pb9VJW211wz8VnzK8SG/PaZ9 OufNEeYtEZOK8dgLgEeK7MRfqzHgVIB9RJgmg0tVFlPOUkd3UvkgkWF53AT5lmhO ELVGQxXXNTHlWpXMqsx+lb7aOzXr57F0AShRhHDX/EGthFwKKT0gwRs/ov4EKmUG E7Mcz9niSgH35eGN99Y4GZvr7zkw4SgOGt8LMriNUN70j6BAwTWx+/velmzMz9lf vtR3F6jBukZkZIV88jEnsc1mLPUcZWbeD57CFt/Y8RVGxb+GqsIgv3moi7bEU3Fj 86P0HYjkEtqbHdUCLfLQ1LweQbjW7hqWohDssINaJ7Bs6P2UycU74JORDXFbXwOo FP88r5Pp348= =f9Qf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7MD0VOBR9BkgZ/an-- From nobody Sat May 31 12:16:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C42D1A007D for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 12:16:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J1tnJqRT3EUr for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 12:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FC2C1A0063 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 06D22A1; Sat, 31 May 2014 21:16:44 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1401563805; bh=KvLvnnIaO2mfOLNLw+oUoymS9bdiiyBbdhjgbcUwH64=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=T3cUdvBVHLPfyzX5pK5Uo2d0vhcFS4NLMQung6w78Yvkpo47BGl0XH3Dq9byDQOjx tRl6DnDfqVSqOdprEhc11rqkwDmpYVqMcqFY8wnMT9QRwMF16Hx2DUhRPQneyUBnps NJL44F748tPbOmdp/XXtDAVURnibhiQLRnWq+72g= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3AB59F; Sat, 31 May 2014 21:16:44 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 21:16:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Gert Doering In-Reply-To: <20140531180343.GZ46558@Space.Net> Message-ID: References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20140531124239.GS46558@Space.Net> <20140531180343.GZ46558@Space.Net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/YSv6tnu0dquxyTqpaOI3Cm9od54 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 19:16:54 -0000 On Sat, 31 May 2014, Gert Doering wrote: >> This is actually a feature, the fact that ISIS doesn't require IPv6 to be >> up and running before it can get itself started and you know the topology >> of the home. > > Uh, what? So the benefit of ISIS (over ISO/OSI transport) in the home would > be "you can have IPv4 in your homenet, without having IPv6"? No, that's not what I said and not what I intended. You can do topology and router discovery without needing IPv4 or IPv6 running if you use ISIS. > Then it was quite clear: I can't see a point in doing protocol work to > solve something in a fashion that would be very very very similar to an > already-existing protocol that has mature implementations. And what protocol are you referring to? Babel? OSPFv3? RIPv2? I can guess you're referring to OSPFv3 since you're now saying "similar" (which wasn't in your earlier email), but I don't understand why you feel the need for irony and need the reader to guess instead of just saying what you mean. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se From nobody Sat May 31 12:17:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2006E1A007F for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 12:17:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ex7qQEs2OazH for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 12:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x231.google.com (mail-pd0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 939291A0063 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 12:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id g10so2064771pdj.22 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 12:17:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=+ZTfEkkG9skpofJ4CDuYKk7l0FtwMRXGqjJPGo4yQcU=; b=070iFfa3ub9dWW3alJaw2zJ2rlpyZip8ytRDDQnT/7LaRCjNpTQTjo80QUYlLOsBNF r6QiQigL6/CrWETLjHPABhH1ZPqxsvEMAIz5x2R6gN+OkowhPNajAlys2Kvtoz30SVQF 0n6c0fSgfAuJxKg4yWBN2NhuEtIGHj277nb2mj/5gRkz4UWLaoqRDB3mCdLP72rJOwbV OvyrHoC0JE4aE0vYLPFaZI9Q9yziwWa6mJBWeq9mBdS/su70VfyXIT/a28+xV+In/bQJ rhwqd2Lzjem5qFJ7KgREgPXJ2hiqW/EqXt7Xu7UIg7wAyPGkX/O7EtnnHtvy6XzBp0/+ 1aYQ== X-Received: by 10.68.211.233 with SMTP id nf9mr28323212pbc.29.1401563839942; Sat, 31 May 2014 12:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from justsomecomcastuser.selfip.org (c-67-188-1-12.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.188.1.12]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id xs2sm37849028pab.0.2014.05.31.12.17.18 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 31 May 2014 12:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) From: Douglas Otis In-Reply-To: <20140531180343.GZ46558@Space.Net> Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 12:17:16 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <95AE7A8A-30BA-4BDD-ABFD-C6B62FDF6A77@gmail.com> References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20140531124239.GS46558@Space.Net> <20140531180343.GZ46558@Space.Net> To: Gert Doering X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/cnUGvyagl1ppY5bPELekBekz4HQ Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" , Mikael Abrahamsson Subject: Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 19:17:26 -0000 On May 31, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, >=20 > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 06:33:45PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> On Sat, 31 May 2014, Gert Doering wrote: >>=20 >>> So I'd keep the list of supported protocols as small as possible - = and=20 >>> stick to IP protocols. ISIS is great for ISP environments, but does = not=20 >>> nicely adapt to a unix environment where the kernel has no idea = about=20 >>> ISO/OSI protocols and you have to do everything via raw sockets. = Which=20 >>> would be a fairly typical environment for a CPE router. >>=20 >> This is actually a feature, the fact that ISIS doesn't require IPv6 = to be=20 >> up and running before it can get itself started and you know the = topology=20 >> of the home. >=20 > Uh, what? So the benefit of ISIS (over ISO/OSI transport) in the home = would=20 > be "you can have IPv4 in your homenet, without having IPv6"? I truly = can't=20 > see a reason why this would be useful in the time frame when this = would be > ready - and it's also out of scope of what the homenet architecture = concerns=20 > itself with. Which, as far as I understand, is "make IPv6 work right, = and=20 > do not damage IPv4", while excluding IPv4-only scenarios. Dear Gert, I could be wrong, but I don't think that was the point. There are also = layer 2 protocols to consider. Expecting everything to be handled at IP transport layer 3 will confront = extremely difficult security issues. Testing using a modern printer/scanner illustrated a major problem when = devices were not restricted to link-local. Something like RBridge = supporting PPP would provide a much safer foundation upon which to = build.=20 All networks must begin with layer 2 starting points. Selective routing = between Rbridges would allow an ability to share data between HDCP = enforced multi-media display devices using link-local addresses. There = will be video cameras, baby monitors, HVAC/SCADA controls, printers and = scanners offering media stick access, etc. These devices were never = intended to directly interface with the Internet. These devices MUST = NOT be assigned routable IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. Using mDNS proxy into = DNS would be setting the stage for major security disasters. Regards, Douglas Otis From nobody Sat May 31 13:03:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E211A0095 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 13:03:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mXV3gMsGr3JP for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67EA81A008E for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/46573) with ESMTP id s4VK3hIL016685; Sat, 31 May 2014 22:03:43 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AC7127FA5; Sat, 31 May 2014 22:03:43 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id K5A3Q7AC9zpr; Sat, 31 May 2014 22:03:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ijon.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ECDB6127FA7; Sat, 31 May 2014 22:03:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 22:03:44 +0200 Message-ID: <87k391k95r.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Mikael Abrahamsson In-Reply-To: References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20140531124239.GS46558@Space.Net> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Sat, 31 May 2014 22:03:43 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 538A359F.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 538A359F.002 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 538A359F.002 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/ovCvj537pxdFMDKlD3bHpfdFs60 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" , Gert Doering Subject: Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 20:03:52 -0000 >> ISIS is great for ISP environments, but does not nicely adapt to a unix >> environment where the kernel has no idea about ISO/OSI protocols and >> you have to do everything via raw sockets. > This is actually a feature, the fact that ISIS doesn't require IPv6 to be > up and running before it can get itself started While I happen to like the elegant way ISIS is layered directly over layer 2, the practical advantage is mostly gone with IPv6, where routers communicate using link-local addresses. For what it's worth, Babel is quite able to establish adjacencies before addressing is up as well as in pure IPv4 networks. (I still think that the ISIS approach is more elegant, though. But unfortunately it breaks down once you start including link layers that cannot easily carry layer 2 frames, such as GRE tunnels.) -- Juliusz From nobody Sat May 31 13:57:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 045C91A00B7 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 13:57:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.151 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JNRjWVq_SgsS for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 13:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (pacdcavout01.cable.comcast.com [69.241.43.119]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6578E1A00B6 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 13:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.56.121]) by pacdcavout01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 97wm3m1.98886231; Sat, 31 May 2014 16:57:15 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXMB18.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d85d:4248:14e8:f24e]) by pacdcexhub04.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::1532:d330:f9a5:c8a1%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Sat, 31 May 2014 16:57:15 -0400 From: "Leddy, John" To: Juliusz Chroboczek , Mikael Abrahamsson Thread-Topic: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet Thread-Index: AQHPfQtsLqXiWTFfSveWtIylTxqZWZtbK7IA Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 20:57:16 +0000 Message-ID: References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20140531124239.GS46558@Space.Net> <87k391k95r.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <87k391k95r.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326 x-originating-ip: [68.87.16.249] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <2583296086865845B9E7D77016E7BD29@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/v4DaF4y3XYccZef_FRLuwccMP_8 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" , Gert Doering Subject: Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 20:57:25 -0000 I like ISIS over V6 as the option. Just carry V4 info. But for anyone that wants to run IPX, DecNet, Appletalk, Banyon Vines=8A You could do ISIS on L2 and carry all the AFI/SAFI info without requiring V6. A good solution, john On 5/31/14, 4:03 PM, "Juliusz Chroboczek" wrote: >>> ISIS is great for ISP environments, but does not nicely adapt to a unix >>> environment where the kernel has no idea about ISO/OSI protocols and >>> you have to do everything via raw sockets. > >> This is actually a feature, the fact that ISIS doesn't require IPv6 to >>be >> up and running before it can get itself started > >While I happen to like the elegant way ISIS is layered directly over >layer 2, the practical advantage is mostly gone with IPv6, where routers >communicate using link-local addresses. For what it's worth, Babel is >quite able to establish adjacencies before addressing is up as well as in >pure IPv4 networks. > >(I still think that the ISIS approach is more elegant, though. But >unfortunately it breaks down once you start including link layers that >cannot easily carry layer 2 frames, such as GRE tunnels.) > >-- Juliusz > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >homenet@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From nobody Sat May 31 14:40:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63C31A00F4 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:40:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0KkFAG7ct-HI for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 009561A00F0 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:39:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: homenet@ietf.org Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A05603F8 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 23:39:54 +0200 (CEST) X-SpaceNet-Relay: true Received: from moebius3.space.net (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCA6B60153 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 23:39:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 25611 invoked by uid 1007); 31 May 2014 23:39:53 +0200 Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 23:39:53 +0200 From: Gert Doering To: Mikael Abrahamsson Message-ID: <20140531213953.GD46558@Space.Net> References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20140531124239.GS46558@Space.Net> <20140531180343.GZ46558@Space.Net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dwDKNx4nQiBp4HDk" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-NCC-RegID: de.space User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/70bzPPYCPQA-3NvL1dG_OCUozwM Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" , Gert Doering Subject: Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 21:40:01 -0000 --dwDKNx4nQiBp4HDk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 09:16:44PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2014, Gert Doering wrote: >=20 > >> This is actually a feature, the fact that ISIS doesn't require IPv6 to= be > >> up and running before it can get itself started and you know the topol= ogy > >> of the home. > > > > Uh, what? So the benefit of ISIS (over ISO/OSI transport) in the home = would > > be "you can have IPv4 in your homenet, without having IPv6"? >=20 > No, that's not what I said and not what I intended. >=20 > You can do topology and router discovery without needing IPv4 or IPv6=20 > running if you use ISIS. True, but for what purpose? Maybe I'm a bit daft today, but I cannot see the scenario where this would be useful. If I'm going to do IPv6 "later on", I'm not really sure how much you're going to win by running ISIS "right away, before IPv6 is running" - and as you say, you don't intend to be not running IPv6 at all. So what? [ different thread ] > > Then it was quite clear: I can't see a point in doing protocol work to= =20 > > solve something in a fashion that would be very very very similar to an= =20 > > already-existing protocol that has mature implementations. >=20 > And what protocol are you referring to? Babel? OSPFv3? RIPv2? I can guess= =20 > you're referring to OSPFv3 since you're now saying "similar" (which wasn'= t=20 > in your earlier email), but I don't understand why you feel the need for= =20 > irony and need the reader to guess instead of just saying what you mean. Oh well. Maybe my irony detector needs recalibration. I thought it was absolutely obvious from the context of "link state protocol" and "transports opaque LSAs" (plus "a new protocol very much like an existing protocol") that only OSPFv3 would fill that niche. RIPv2 is most certainly not a=20 link state protocol... Yes, I didn't say "similar", because I wrote a sentence that repeated the same thing twice. Which implies "quite similar". But oh well, I'll refraim from trying to use humor to bring across a message that should have been obvious in the first place. Gert Doering -- NetMaster --=20 have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 --dwDKNx4nQiBp4HDk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIVAwUBU4pMKd9WwGXkzn/FAQJRlA//e76P5ecHuDi0bUvo/jMn04ZGWFLCxUbf wow2zZNpBhABqBbgq4X3AP0TI8GGHbPt9QsIXcrGTNth2I5FKmUbe5715HbyiseC qateF6i7owC3iv3QzGiyuT4Com5wPVQHXVzo1iOSoJDwjOHp+7AjeghZIbHHLRYy EdZhD0V9xJ+kamPglk0derquxsLeKls41jFEfPm0WC2seCIRgr1ps0VWlSVUs5JA P7KEcU7dcTOGwpoyGt3x4pB4uPlUrftQfFZnTfUtOu4auWAmhqEeJjpagBfU71JA ye4Bmr9DDwZzFxK50sB6wFRQxWog/pdUvU8PMGAm78TO63mz8dhQsH5xoSlHchN7 87bz9kXHwRIa5SlpcmTKp+1ynirQYBS42p8nza3PlUs1FI6/pk259FP6p8JkWUWA dGJ+/zs66HOvwTX2Xg7/TAPL1OGow+90zStZptrgLYsmV+EfTjMgXJqUOTljjNuQ 6KS6aSrUFPAUWrm5E7Q8kECAHg9akZvXxUtwOYE+aJduWW3FdSXYjbqWBnDCUNrV KcGX8+lViy44gYtYhSupX/V/AxR+UznHQQ4ND2xzTegc36VQXy/ZRiRg15YSVxQh 6LoFBgPOlT2kw7wMEEE026s48DOKdigpJ+mpSE+/M+v3u/rf+7lu4iNQSnbNKzEB 9om2+uJgu3w= =vY5T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dwDKNx4nQiBp4HDk-- From nobody Sat May 31 14:41:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDEC01A00FD for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:41:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BeT7-Bp8VgJb for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:41:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D99BE1A00EA for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:41:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: homenet@ietf.org Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237ED60418 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 23:41:46 +0200 (CEST) X-SpaceNet-Relay: true Received: from moebius3.space.net (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E056F602AA for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 23:41:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 26286 invoked by uid 1007); 31 May 2014 23:41:45 +0200 Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 23:41:45 +0200 From: Gert Doering To: "Leddy, John" Message-ID: <20140531214145.GE46558@Space.Net> References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20140531124239.GS46558@Space.Net> <87k391k95r.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="w8NEM23WsiTAHpTR" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-NCC-RegID: de.space User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/NyVIVMNRfrqJmKR2Jj-su7L32Dw Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" , Mikael Abrahamsson , Gert Doering , Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 21:41:53 -0000 --w8NEM23WsiTAHpTR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 08:57:16PM +0000, Leddy, John wrote: > But for anyone that wants to run IPX, DecNet, Appletalk, Banyon Vines? In *homenet*? Gert Doering -- NetMaster --=20 have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 --w8NEM23WsiTAHpTR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIVAwUBU4pMmd9WwGXkzn/FAQJK8w//YDMmfSYVAxrULf39YFNrxCBdNnW9w2lF LhT35/BGahgAcKX+2FFb0klVuoaGOd5Tc3ef7pAIUdacwr4Q0X/ASengXmrTRigh WSaHD8VjPS8c5DEK38SLrjisvcfNbMVy3vVkGv0sBVmK/ojCisfHFcbBIq0ZyDbk RM02P0T0Ylj+cd6ihm60nkFVKrZkYvHquECmaTkyQohAbCEEWKeR/Ebr/4Qt/Yct jUSHOyiP5fpEfnmUzDCkZNancyoow1Y2yPPDiN1tGTM3o9zjDzKMseSsvNCKjo+T 8f9ELsnGuftgEPKY0Zei9I66mKlyl1SRZk2kP/DzJFwLbult3MilF2dZWDdea0Ci +tz0bb1pZ5lTDbtDJceoHl/2taWIXogqmHQAEq9mTbtliA4geMiNu+U0E4b/oKWg PcyP53fOivM5t6DMF76uqHfBkhFO0vNxmeYtYGdtn/qX5bhhIXQ1JCy1z6BC3g1Y LwXbper+Z9h8h0wR4eyaNTaUl59JdefxiDcKua+HiwfUZZLOzCCpcVdC10KtqoYV NnnUaXV4T1pw4kqW2eneUWhNb7mHb5dON8GwumdQUvPfwLVLP/C/Vd99q0GQip45 9Al8Xo1FbZWBDDKWReNfJZT31yGOHWmcMBFodEK0jXTijsZxLBPBZr/5Ytk6+yF2 hhgk6kRgGc0= =+Fyh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --w8NEM23WsiTAHpTR-- From nobody Sat May 31 14:48:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 867AA1A00DF for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:48:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jc5dMWVzBfZ1 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:48:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC3A61A0100 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:48:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: homenet@ietf.org Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0678360465 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 23:48:33 +0200 (CEST) X-SpaceNet-Relay: true Received: from moebius3.space.net (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B743A602C8 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 23:48:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 27030 invoked by uid 1007); 31 May 2014 23:48:32 +0200 Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 23:48:32 +0200 From: Gert Doering To: Douglas Otis Message-ID: <20140531214832.GF46558@Space.Net> References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B8202@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20140531124239.GS46558@Space.Net> <20140531180343.GZ46558@Space.Net> <95AE7A8A-30BA-4BDD-ABFD-C6B62FDF6A77@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZV3zrNw988WlJQDT" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <95AE7A8A-30BA-4BDD-ABFD-C6B62FDF6A77@gmail.com> X-NCC-RegID: de.space User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/DfKcV4ANEPyGZ75ZcThPfmBA8Xo Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" , Gert Doering , Mikael Abrahamsson Subject: Re: [homenet] Single or Multiple Routing Protocols in Homenet X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 21:48:40 -0000 --ZV3zrNw988WlJQDT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:17:16PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote: > >> On Sat, 31 May 2014, Gert Doering wrote: > >>=20 > >>> So I'd keep the list of supported protocols as small as possible - an= d=20 > >>> stick to IP protocols. ISIS is great for ISP environments, but does = not=20 > >>> nicely adapt to a unix environment where the kernel has no idea about= =20 > >>> ISO/OSI protocols and you have to do everything via raw sockets. Whi= ch=20 > >>> would be a fairly typical environment for a CPE router. [..] >=20 > I could be wrong, but I don't think that was the point. There are also la= yer 2 protocols to consider. I quoted my original comment above. This is the context we're talking about: protocols to be considered for routing inside the homenet. In *homenet*. > Expecting everything to be handled at IP transport layer 3 will confront = extremely difficult security issues. >=20 > Testing using a modern printer/scanner illustrated a major problem when d= evices were not restricted to link-local. Something like RBridge supportin= g PPP would provide a much safer foundation upon which to build.=20 >=20 > All networks must begin with layer 2 starting points. Selective routing = between Rbridges would allow an ability to share data between HDCP enforced= multi-media display devices using link-local addresses. There will be vid= eo cameras, baby monitors, HVAC/SCADA controls, printers and scanners offer= ing media stick access, etc. These devices were never intended to directly = interface with the Internet. These devices MUST NOT be assigned routable I= Pv4 or IPv6 addresses. Using mDNS proxy into DNS would be setting the stag= e for major security disasters. While this is all true, I cannot see how this related to what I said above, and to the question of "is ISIS better suited as a link-state protocol to transport opaque LSAs than OSPFv3?" - because *both* do that job without "assigned routable IPv4 or IPv6 addresses" - ISIS talks over L2 (or potentially IPv6 link-local as was mentioned), OSPFv3 talks over=20 IPv6 link-local. This thread wasn't about questioning the whole homenet architecture, but about a specific side aspect: would additional routing protocols be conside= red a plus. And I say "no", out of general reasoning, and because I consider the particular protocol to be not very well suited for typical SoHo router implementations. Gert Doering -- NetMaster --=20 have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 --ZV3zrNw988WlJQDT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIVAwUBU4pOMN9WwGXkzn/FAQIQKxAAqTwrkRs7wAXBmvYoI8O2WRg2oBaBybWg RLz73fz84e3CS0Td2933AIego3+Aozt4mRf8he1dwqe1cLEH11wDmc9gaEbMm4UA UrtZBiNAk1smqOmsXHlaVLe46GU+kxE9Fl8AhY0jSs2atBhG2OVeGYkBvLirYK7a 4UEAp0Xl+WRo5f3DfEvILVgdwn/W3JD42HFbDjv35NDGgb/ZPGCbXW2sw1NSuoC3 xM1EBqMidJKFBHQAVoPIROXyloBcZNr5zJ0Vb2TAZAVUespFW8eCIiWEPj3RBo7r s4u/X1cPaB4K3OMMGqukfvP3EuC8IxYdAHstiJSRa7mzBJQm1c2227EL17BLdZHX drWLBxfm8BVTGdGOlOyscS3xqmUqYDYXCVZKFCv1UGqnW1u+x9BRi6QWP+pWhLdO 7R8RU4pULJlUpiM4p0wrxMgVirIYnKESj0Qa1KTGwhpdVrcR/94XPq82eaBxUo2r AOWpPdIgLKpgaRdtbSpsiSo4Uh4Jg/S8Qj+mHWALXIn7+L/ZUjtyCj3/pESIZAUX uudvVEja5e5wL8gyl2o48g3y7niKGJtSmpSwsKmNpoGroQQgLyUI6FpmU8iOc+BU Rd4zZINKtBZRcYIS0zdbOeQEFL+PT+OmClHF57cu/pqCzha1FkPsxK7KA3tNs5gG DM30etZbaac= =I/VC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZV3zrNw988WlJQDT--