From fred@cisco.com Sat Oct 1 06:57:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3155721F96C7; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 06:57:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.803 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.803 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.196, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3+740cQaDAPl; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 06:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-3.cisco.com (ams-iport-3.cisco.com [144.254.224.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A50321F93AE; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 06:57:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=9687; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317477599; x=1318687199; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uRTGQKM5xa30QoPmn5dHgF8SnCs6Lgg0844OqGPKLVw=; b=fB2Vj75qYRdXqluRVtGz0J1EmEd7BZWzsTpLOGWPBJ9NYUj2xiP6V4zF 3fNPgb9k8uAG+HmZ1QjIjlt4T1aSRL7S12b8oRlu4VwZ2ThfLFSVcwLsA 9GNanGMo7H2o4Ytw31n3YZavMvCAECh+9r53Wy+ZAcJ9is/DF3t3Tc19Y k=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,473,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="122440" Received: from bgl-core-3.cisco.com ([72.163.197.18]) by ams-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Oct 2011 13:59:52 +0000 Received: from Freds-Computer.local (sin-vpn-client-16-42.cisco.com [10.68.16.42]) by bgl-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p91Dxlbj007535; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 13:59:47 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Sat, 01 Oct 2011 21:59:52 +0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Sat, 01 Oct 2011 21:59:52 +0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Fred Baker In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:26:04 +0300 Message-Id: References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <44783019-1016-4D06-BACA-6130617F099A@ericsson.com> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , Acee Lindem , homenet@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 13:57:03 -0000 As I understand it, we have made the case that there is a place for = routing in at least some homes and in SOHO networks, and we should say = what protocols manufacturers should consider implementing in equipment = they sell. Two significant parts of the issue there, as you know, are = operational expense and cost of goods. Margins in residential routers = are thin enough that manufacturers (one of which you know from the = inside) essentially lose their entire profit margin if they pick up the = phone for a trouble call, and in addition the memory to store the code = and data, and the code itself, cost money on a COGS basis. Manufacturers = want to be able to buy trouble-free code for a predictable price, put it = in the system, and forget the system. Which argues for proven specifications and implementations that have = been field proven to interoperate when used in anger. To my knowledge, this doesn't automatically imply "give me that old time = religion". It does call for proven (and preferably documented) = interoperability between numerous independent complete implementations, = or proven interoperability of a common profile of a protocol, an = exercise I have suggested to some proponents of your favorite protocol = is good for the soul. RFC 1246 comes to mind. By the way, let me clarify a point that you may be confused on. There = are detailed interoperability reports for RIPv2, OSPFv2, BGP[1234], and = I think IPv4/IS-IS. To my knowledge, there has been interoperability = testing of RIPng, OSPFv3, BGP-for-IPv6, and IPv6/IS-IS, all of which are = in use in production networks, but the test documentation is a trifle = thin. So I'm not asking of your favorite protocol or a dozen others that = one could discuss something I think should let slide for the traditional = ones. I am simply asking that the claims for the protocols be backed = with interoperability testing, RFCs, Security Directorate reviews, and = so on. On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hello Cedric: >=20 > I have the same questions. Furthermore, I'd wish to understand better: >=20 > *** whether the goal is limited to provide a best practice based on = "established" ICT technologies=20 >=20 > There are other "established" technologies. For instance there is = extensive networking experience in industrial networks, solving = different problems under different constraints. Same goes in AMI/AMR = networks, and to a lesser extent in Home, commercial and building = automation. Some groups in the IETF have finally started to pay = attention and build on that experience. Even if the resulting = technologies (e.g. ZigbeeIP and ISA100.11a) are fairly recent, the scale = is such that over a few years we have seen unprecedented amounts of = implementations, interop and compliance tests (e.g. under IPSO and WCI). >=20 > Also, if we map home use cases with the routing technologies that = applied today, we see that at the moment the traditional IGPs do not = play much role, at least from the home standpoint: > - Internet to Home (Content consumption) is not a Home problem > - Home to Internet (metering, P2P) is a default route > - Home to Home (Content and Access sharing) is dominated by OLSR. > - Inside Home (Content and Device sharing) is single subnet, solved = reactively by ARP or ND. > - Inside Home (Command & Control, Automation) meshing is proprietary = though going 6LoWPAN and RPL. >=20 > In any fashion, we can solve an additional problem of our own making = that would require our beloved ICT IGPs to be injected in the Home = network with always-on routers in each room or we can start producing = best practices on how the above can to be done with the technologies = that are already in place. Or both? >=20 > *** whether we have an assumption of a plethora of power >=20 > Year over year, we've seen the simplest devices migrate from a = totally-switched-off mode to some more and more power greedy sleeping = and always-on modes. > Always-on displays and LEDs appears fancy to the consumer but are of = consequence on the family budget and at the scale of a city, result in = measurable pollution.=20 > And we've been connecting more and more devices to the home power = distribution, devices that would not exist 10-20 years ago. > We know how power-greedy traditional ICT technologies are; people do = not want a new heating system that they cannot even stop in summer. > My take is that whatever this group produces has to be justified in = terms of power budget as it has to be justified in other terms like = usability and security. >=20 >=20 > *** if HOMENET is targeting home gateways and large home cinema gear = only, and whether we have an assumption of cat 5/6 cabling >=20 > This case is probably the low hanging fruit and that there is an = immediate need to solve a number of problems there. If that's what the = group is pursuing for the time being, well, that's fine as long as it's = very clear to everybody. But the rest of the world is low power and = lossy. Apart from certain ecological niches (that's datacenter mostly) = about all Internet-connected devices have evolved the wireless trait, = even if the most traditional devices can still use wires. The new trait = has lowered dramatically the cost and complexity of accessing the = Internet, which in turn allowed the introduction of new species of = internet-connected devices that now thrive under the name of Things. At = some point we'll have to address that too. >=20 > I do not know how that converts into cents at the current rate... >=20 > Pascal >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: C Chauvenet [mailto:c.chauvenet@watteco.com]=20 > Sent: jeudi 29 septembre 2011 17:23 > To: Acee Lindem; Fred Baker (fred) > Cc: Mark Townsley; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); MANET IETF; = homenet@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [homenet] Question for you >=20 > Hi,=20 >=20 > " I don't think my wife would want a lossy network in our house ;^)" :=20= >=20 > Nobody wants a lossy network, but the technology you are using may = create lossy links... >=20 > I may have miss something in the Homenet scope. >=20 > In the scope of Homenet, is every device in the house runing over a = *robust* link (Bit Error Rate below 1 % at the PHY level) ? >=20 > Furthermore do these devices could have some high = Power/Computation/Size/Cost constraints ? >=20 > I fail to see the kind of technologies and devices that are targeting. >=20 > Thanks for the clarification. >=20 > C=E9dric . >=20 > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] Envoy=E9 : jeudi 29 = septembre 2011 16:44 =C0 : Fred Baker Cc : Mark Townsley; C Chauvenet; = Pascal Thubert (pthubert); MANET IETF; homenet@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org = Objet : Re: [homenet] Question for you >=20 > I'm in complete agreement with Fred. The areas where the existing = link-state protocols may need to be extended are auto-configuration and, = potentially, inter-area policies. =20 > I don't think my wife would want a lossy network in our house ;^) = Thanks, Acee On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: >>=20 >>> Since you asked, *I* think that a homenet has functional overlap = (what I called "at least a smaller and slightly different subset" in my = email) in terms of requirements to LLNs. At first blush, it looks like = RPL has lots of functionality - perhaps more than we really need for = homenet, and by your own admission more than you need for LLN's - but = will hold reservation on what I think best fits the bill until we see = Fred's analysis, hear from others, etc.=20 >>=20 >> My two yen, which may be all it's worth... >>=20 >> If I were a Linksys/D-Link/NetGear/* product manager asking about = what protocols to put in, I wouldn't be asking about what still exists = in Internet Drafts and is thought by the engineers designing it to be = better than sliced bread, but about what was inexpensive to implement, = likely to be close to bug-free, and definitively accomplished the goal. = I note that most routers for the IPv4 residential routing marketplace = implement RIPv2; I know of one that implements no routing protocol, one = that implements RIPv2 and RIPv1 (!), and one that implements RIPv2 and = OSPF (don't ask which they are, I don't remember). This is from a google = search of residential routers a few months ago and covered perhaps 20 = products from half as many vendors. So my first inclination is to say = that for a residential IPv6 network, RIPng is probably an image match = for those vendors. >>=20 >> I have a personal bias in the direction of OSPF or IS-IS; I think = that once the code is debugged, SPF-based protocols are more stable (no = count-to-infinity), given a reasonable set of defaults generate far more = stable networks, and definitively know when there is more than one = router on a LAN, which can be important in subnet distribution.=20 >>=20 >> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the field = in multiple interoperable implementations.=20 >>=20 >> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest that = folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask = themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >=20 >=20 >=20 From d.sturek@att.net Sat Oct 1 07:36:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A5EF21F97C3 for ; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 07:36:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.76 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.76 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.839, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mnu4MZRlLgKX for ; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 07:36:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm17-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm17-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.236.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ED5A221F97C1 for ; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 07:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.94.237.200] by nm17.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Oct 2011 14:39:30 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.111] by tm11.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Oct 2011 14:39:30 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1016.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Oct 2011 14:39:30 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 241033.863.bm@omp1016.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 67845 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2011 14:39:30 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1317479970; bh=3SSRNpPl/XFRrI+n8fHpuMxC6/SRMNmgIB9nbskpYVg=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=Or9o9hYkkhaBMnmhmxlykf6IJUDdziral3aCd3QsdENCSWLBpXsL014PYnrV07whc2fumk/lN+Hfu+/tN7hRaJ9z7+HV7RnTJBTGncweuWvqOjHo5YEwcZ0jUmfNdT3BbLdJESBLdS3sBQuhrUTAH/L0IeJkqLmUORgFWkyfqb8= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 0KPssaoVM1kUE_pJYgtsmd6i._3WAVc.iSvwEUWrDBBAm1M F.mOUuA_TjOg2HITBCiVqfFoRaThc6r3PW28y.IwCLZ1eyPq_PULrCS7lsGE P6ZZNWTTAEL0IWWGSj1y6YfCc0HH3bf_.FAw7tEmVMQzbWZEOOqMiNaOeULY cH4jkowR4tbIAUDT5tjpEths5CNMV_OUMbXsi69SQUAuVED86CMyQ7eeuQYF _OABtNqXM9RDTo4TDOMFmGalsXJbPMYaLVnzlGQoSrYap4CWrbDBCpBOQhDt Zr6Z3R8Qzy_E0h5wA5MhffQOOaBjh6gdAoByBLPKXEIgP_96nJ94hCKWBefH DB0ZMRMvkDoc67DmSfvHEdzWjLOiLl4gCW7I20X_7KmV6BbLxds59GpkCFFV 69wXcBmM.fgWn345bOg9x X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [192.168.0.196] (d.sturek@69.108.51.206 with login) by smtp109.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 01 Oct 2011 07:39:29 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 07:38:12 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Fred Baker , "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [manet] [homenet] Question for you In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Cc: C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , Acee Lindem , homenet@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:36:37 -0000 To add one more point to Fred's note: I think it is important to get a commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or all of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing. I agree with Fred that having individual CPE vendors cobbling together RFCs will not yield a bullet proof home networking solution and that will kill the work in Homenet if customer support is needed. Don On 9/30/11 11:26 AM, "Fred Baker" wrote: >As I understand it, we have made the case that there is a place for >routing in at least some homes and in SOHO networks, and we should say >what protocols manufacturers should consider implementing in equipment >they sell. Two significant parts of the issue there, as you know, are >operational expense and cost of goods. Margins in residential routers are >thin enough that manufacturers (one of which you know from the inside) >essentially lose their entire profit margin if they pick up the phone for >a trouble call, and in addition the memory to store the code and data, >and the code itself, cost money on a COGS basis. Manufacturers want to be >able to buy trouble-free code for a predictable price, put it in the >system, and forget the system. > >Which argues for proven specifications and implementations that have been >field proven to interoperate when used in anger. > >To my knowledge, this doesn't automatically imply "give me that old time >religion". It does call for proven (and preferably documented) >interoperability between numerous independent complete implementations, >or proven interoperability of a common profile of a protocol, an exercise >I have suggested to some proponents of your favorite protocol is good for >the soul. RFC 1246 comes to mind. > >By the way, let me clarify a point that you may be confused on. There are >detailed interoperability reports for RIPv2, OSPFv2, BGP[1234], and I >think IPv4/IS-IS. To my knowledge, there has been interoperability >testing of RIPng, OSPFv3, BGP-for-IPv6, and IPv6/IS-IS, all of which are >in use in production networks, but the test documentation is a trifle >thin. So I'm not asking of your favorite protocol or a dozen others that >one could discuss something I think should let slide for the traditional >ones. I am simply asking that the claims for the protocols be backed with >interoperability testing, RFCs, Security Directorate reviews, and so on. > >On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > >> Hello Cedric: >>=20 >> I have the same questions. Furthermore, I'd wish to understand better: >>=20 >> *** whether the goal is limited to provide a best practice based on >>"established" ICT technologies >>=20 >> There are other "established" technologies. For instance there is >>extensive networking experience in industrial networks, solving >>different problems under different constraints. Same goes in AMI/AMR >>networks, and to a lesser extent in Home, commercial and building >>automation. Some groups in the IETF have finally started to pay >>attention and build on that experience. Even if the resulting >>technologies (e.g. ZigbeeIP and ISA100.11a) are fairly recent, the scale >>is such that over a few years we have seen unprecedented amounts of >>implementations, interop and compliance tests (e.g. under IPSO and WCI). >>=20 >> Also, if we map home use cases with the routing technologies that >>applied today, we see that at the moment the traditional IGPs do not >>play much role, at least from the home standpoint: >> - Internet to Home (Content consumption) is not a Home problem >> - Home to Internet (metering, P2P) is a default route >> - Home to Home (Content and Access sharing) is dominated by OLSR. >> - Inside Home (Content and Device sharing) is single subnet, solved >>reactively by ARP or ND. >> - Inside Home (Command & Control, Automation) meshing is proprietary >>though going 6LoWPAN and RPL. >>=20 >> In any fashion, we can solve an additional problem of our own making >>that would require our beloved ICT IGPs to be injected in the Home >>network with always-on routers in each room or we can start producing >>best practices on how the above can to be done with the technologies >>that are already in place. Or both? >>=20 >> *** whether we have an assumption of a plethora of power >>=20 >> Year over year, we've seen the simplest devices migrate from a >>totally-switched-off mode to some more and more power greedy sleeping >>and always-on modes. >> Always-on displays and LEDs appears fancy to the consumer but are of >>consequence on the family budget and at the scale of a city, result in >>measurable pollution. >> And we've been connecting more and more devices to the home power >>distribution, devices that would not exist 10-20 years ago. >> We know how power-greedy traditional ICT technologies are; people do >>not want a new heating system that they cannot even stop in summer. >> My take is that whatever this group produces has to be justified in >>terms of power budget as it has to be justified in other terms like >>usability and security. >>=20 >>=20 >> *** if HOMENET is targeting home gateways and large home cinema gear >>only, and whether we have an assumption of cat 5/6 cabling >>=20 >> This case is probably the low hanging fruit and that there is an >>immediate need to solve a number of problems there. If that's what the >>group is pursuing for the time being, well, that's fine as long as it's >>very clear to everybody. But the rest of the world is low power and >>lossy. Apart from certain ecological niches (that's datacenter mostly) >>about all Internet-connected devices have evolved the wireless trait, >>even if the most traditional devices can still use wires. The new trait >>has lowered dramatically the cost and complexity of accessing the >>Internet, which in turn allowed the introduction of new species of >>internet-connected devices that now thrive under the name of Things. At >>some point we'll have to address that too. >>=20 >> I do not know how that converts into cents at the current rate... >>=20 >> Pascal >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C Chauvenet [mailto:c.chauvenet@watteco.com] >> Sent: jeudi 29 septembre 2011 17:23 >> To: Acee Lindem; Fred Baker (fred) >> Cc: Mark Townsley; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); MANET IETF; >>homenet@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: [homenet] Question for you >>=20 >> Hi,=20 >>=20 >> " I don't think my wife would want a lossy network in our house ;^)" : >>=20 >> Nobody wants a lossy network, but the technology you are using may >>create lossy links... >>=20 >> I may have miss something in the Homenet scope. >>=20 >> In the scope of Homenet, is every device in the house runing over a >>*robust* link (Bit Error Rate below 1 % at the PHY level) ? >>=20 >> Furthermore do these devices could have some high >>Power/Computation/Size/Cost constraints ? >>=20 >> I fail to see the kind of technologies and devices that are targeting. >>=20 >> Thanks for the clarification. >>=20 >> C=E9dric . >>=20 >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] Envoy=E9 : jeudi 29 >>septembre 2011 16:44 =C0 : Fred Baker Cc : Mark Townsley; C Chauvenet; >>Pascal Thubert (pthubert); MANET IETF; homenet@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org >>Objet : Re: [homenet] Question for you >>=20 >> I'm in complete agreement with Fred. The areas where the existing >>link-state protocols may need to be extended are auto-configuration and, >>potentially, inter-area policies. >> I don't think my wife would want a lossy network in our house ;^) >>Thanks, Acee On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Since you asked, *I* think that a homenet has functional overlap >>>>(what I called "at least a smaller and slightly different subset" in >>>>my email) in terms of requirements to LLNs. At first blush, it looks >>>>like RPL has lots of functionality - perhaps more than we really need >>>>for homenet, and by your own admission more than you need for LLN's - >>>>but will hold reservation on what I think best fits the bill until we >>>>see Fred's analysis, hear from others, etc. >>>=20 >>> My two yen, which may be all it's worth... >>>=20 >>> If I were a Linksys/D-Link/NetGear/* product manager asking about what >>>protocols to put in, I wouldn't be asking about what still exists in >>>Internet Drafts and is thought by the engineers designing it to be >>>better than sliced bread, but about what was inexpensive to implement, >>>likely to be close to bug-free, and definitively accomplished the goal. >>>I note that most routers for the IPv4 residential routing marketplace >>>implement RIPv2; I know of one that implements no routing protocol, one >>>that implements RIPv2 and RIPv1 (!), and one that implements RIPv2 and >>>OSPF (don't ask which they are, I don't remember). This is from a >>>google search of residential routers a few months ago and covered >>>perhaps 20 products from half as many vendors. So my first inclination >>>is to say that for a residential IPv6 network, RIPng is probably an >>>image match for those vendors. >>>=20 >>> I have a personal bias in the direction of OSPF or IS-IS; I think that >>>once the code is debugged, SPF-based protocols are more stable (no >>>count-to-infinity), given a reasonable set of defaults generate far >>>more stable networks, and definitively know when there is more than one >>>router on a LAN, which can be important in subnet distribution. >>>=20 >>> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the field >>>in multiple interoperable implementations. >>>=20 >>> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest that >>>folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask >>>themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> homenet mailing list >>> homenet@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 > >_______________________________________________ >manet mailing list >manet@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From fred@cisco.com Sat Oct 1 17:17:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9F521F8DB0; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:17:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UVNZbpm65dXV; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:17:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58DF021F8DAB; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:17:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=299; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317514849; x=1318724449; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kfNAU+9GpEMuTtXQQZ1VkbIzn/xG9TEuYDzmLr+WTLI=; b=Iam20l1fV7Uf4hIXWh/CqWv2t9rAjeuIiZeGdAO/LIpjYTHx5ZayfyMV 5mfUrGps3ddfdpKMR+gmdRD9VLyr1FYnI8WLSJLF44NipI/OhJyTXfM35 OuUALUizaVcZVeT/7juxV5JS5+RNqngQJW4AsyicQVU7InhGlgr+SEdMr Q=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,475,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="56909404" Received: from bgl-core-2.cisco.com ([72.163.197.17]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Oct 2011 00:20:45 +0000 Received: from Freds-Computer.local (sin-vpn-client-16-42.cisco.com [10.68.16.42]) by bgl-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p920KiRd000383; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 00:20:44 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Sun, 02 Oct 2011 08:20:45 +0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Sun, 02 Oct 2011 08:20:45 +0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Fred Baker In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 08:20:32 +0800 Message-Id: <1C39033D-FBB9-4CAF-8C8C-E21AB4A1E9CE@cisco.com> References: To: Don Sturek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , Acee Lindem , homenet@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 00:17:51 -0000 On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > To add one more point to Fred's note: I think it is important to get a > commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or all > of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing. That would be very interesting. From mark@townsley.net Sun Oct 2 19:08:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B6B21F84DA; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 19:08:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.176 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.176 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.177, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BupKovd6xzg2; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 19:08:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61FD21F849A; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 19:08:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwf22 with SMTP id 22so3478515wwf.13 for ; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 19:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.197.207 with SMTP id el15mr2318636wbb.31.1317607906979; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 19:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.109] (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fy13sm20938640wbb.18.2011.10.02.19.11.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 02 Oct 2011 19:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Mark Townsley In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 04:11:41 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <225C6EB3-9659-41D6-8B39-90C7DC0F016D@townsley.net> References: To: Don Sturek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Acee Lindem , Fred Baker , homenet@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 02:08:52 -0000 On Oct 1, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > To add one more point to Fred's note: I think it is important to get = a > commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or = all > of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing. I am constantly amazed at the plethora of consumer-oriented standards = groups/forums/logos/associations/etc... We've had decent uptake of RFC 6204 and other products of v6ops = targeting the consumer space. I hope that continues.=20 Of course, anyone with specific ties into any of the organizations that = might want to use our work, please feel free to help make that happen. - Mark >=20 > I agree with Fred that having individual CPE vendors cobbling together > RFCs will not yield a bullet proof home networking solution and that = will > kill the work in Homenet if customer support is needed. >=20 > Don >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 9/30/11 11:26 AM, "Fred Baker" wrote: >=20 >> As I understand it, we have made the case that there is a place for >> routing in at least some homes and in SOHO networks, and we should = say >> what protocols manufacturers should consider implementing in = equipment >> they sell. Two significant parts of the issue there, as you know, are >> operational expense and cost of goods. Margins in residential routers = are >> thin enough that manufacturers (one of which you know from the = inside) >> essentially lose their entire profit margin if they pick up the phone = for >> a trouble call, and in addition the memory to store the code and = data, >> and the code itself, cost money on a COGS basis. Manufacturers want = to be >> able to buy trouble-free code for a predictable price, put it in the >> system, and forget the system. >>=20 >> Which argues for proven specifications and implementations that have = been >> field proven to interoperate when used in anger. >>=20 >> To my knowledge, this doesn't automatically imply "give me that old = time >> religion". It does call for proven (and preferably documented) >> interoperability between numerous independent complete = implementations, >> or proven interoperability of a common profile of a protocol, an = exercise >> I have suggested to some proponents of your favorite protocol is good = for >> the soul. RFC 1246 comes to mind. >>=20 >> By the way, let me clarify a point that you may be confused on. There = are >> detailed interoperability reports for RIPv2, OSPFv2, BGP[1234], and I >> think IPv4/IS-IS. To my knowledge, there has been interoperability >> testing of RIPng, OSPFv3, BGP-for-IPv6, and IPv6/IS-IS, all of which = are >> in use in production networks, but the test documentation is a trifle >> thin. So I'm not asking of your favorite protocol or a dozen others = that >> one could discuss something I think should let slide for the = traditional >> ones. I am simply asking that the claims for the protocols be backed = with >> interoperability testing, RFCs, Security Directorate reviews, and so = on. >>=20 >> On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >>=20 >>> Hello Cedric: >>>=20 >>> I have the same questions. Furthermore, I'd wish to understand = better: >>>=20 >>> *** whether the goal is limited to provide a best practice based on >>> "established" ICT technologies >>>=20 >>> There are other "established" technologies. For instance there is >>> extensive networking experience in industrial networks, solving >>> different problems under different constraints. Same goes in AMI/AMR >>> networks, and to a lesser extent in Home, commercial and building >>> automation. Some groups in the IETF have finally started to pay >>> attention and build on that experience. Even if the resulting >>> technologies (e.g. ZigbeeIP and ISA100.11a) are fairly recent, the = scale >>> is such that over a few years we have seen unprecedented amounts of >>> implementations, interop and compliance tests (e.g. under IPSO and = WCI). >>>=20 >>> Also, if we map home use cases with the routing technologies that >>> applied today, we see that at the moment the traditional IGPs do not >>> play much role, at least from the home standpoint: >>> - Internet to Home (Content consumption) is not a Home problem >>> - Home to Internet (metering, P2P) is a default route >>> - Home to Home (Content and Access sharing) is dominated by OLSR. >>> - Inside Home (Content and Device sharing) is single subnet, solved >>> reactively by ARP or ND. >>> - Inside Home (Command & Control, Automation) meshing is proprietary >>> though going 6LoWPAN and RPL. >>>=20 >>> In any fashion, we can solve an additional problem of our own making >>> that would require our beloved ICT IGPs to be injected in the Home >>> network with always-on routers in each room or we can start = producing >>> best practices on how the above can to be done with the technologies >>> that are already in place. Or both? >>>=20 >>> *** whether we have an assumption of a plethora of power >>>=20 >>> Year over year, we've seen the simplest devices migrate from a >>> totally-switched-off mode to some more and more power greedy = sleeping >>> and always-on modes. >>> Always-on displays and LEDs appears fancy to the consumer but are of >>> consequence on the family budget and at the scale of a city, result = in >>> measurable pollution. >>> And we've been connecting more and more devices to the home power >>> distribution, devices that would not exist 10-20 years ago. >>> We know how power-greedy traditional ICT technologies are; people do >>> not want a new heating system that they cannot even stop in summer. >>> My take is that whatever this group produces has to be justified in >>> terms of power budget as it has to be justified in other terms like >>> usability and security. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> *** if HOMENET is targeting home gateways and large home cinema gear >>> only, and whether we have an assumption of cat 5/6 cabling >>>=20 >>> This case is probably the low hanging fruit and that there is an >>> immediate need to solve a number of problems there. If that's what = the >>> group is pursuing for the time being, well, that's fine as long as = it's >>> very clear to everybody. But the rest of the world is low power and >>> lossy. Apart from certain ecological niches (that's datacenter = mostly) >>> about all Internet-connected devices have evolved the wireless = trait, >>> even if the most traditional devices can still use wires. The new = trait >>> has lowered dramatically the cost and complexity of accessing the >>> Internet, which in turn allowed the introduction of new species of >>> internet-connected devices that now thrive under the name of Things. = At >>> some point we'll have to address that too. >>>=20 >>> I do not know how that converts into cents at the current rate... >>>=20 >>> Pascal >>>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C Chauvenet [mailto:c.chauvenet@watteco.com] >>> Sent: jeudi 29 septembre 2011 17:23 >>> To: Acee Lindem; Fred Baker (fred) >>> Cc: Mark Townsley; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); MANET IETF; >>> homenet@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: [homenet] Question for you >>>=20 >>> Hi,=20 >>>=20 >>> " I don't think my wife would want a lossy network in our house ;^)" = : >>>=20 >>> Nobody wants a lossy network, but the technology you are using may >>> create lossy links... >>>=20 >>> I may have miss something in the Homenet scope. >>>=20 >>> In the scope of Homenet, is every device in the house runing over a >>> *robust* link (Bit Error Rate below 1 % at the PHY level) ? >>>=20 >>> Furthermore do these devices could have some high >>> Power/Computation/Size/Cost constraints ? >>>=20 >>> I fail to see the kind of technologies and devices that are = targeting. >>>=20 >>> Thanks for the clarification. >>>=20 >>> C=E9dric . >>>=20 >>> -----Message d'origine----- >>> De : Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] Envoy=E9 : jeudi = 29 >>> septembre 2011 16:44 =C0 : Fred Baker Cc : Mark Townsley; C = Chauvenet; >>> Pascal Thubert (pthubert); MANET IETF; homenet@ietf.org; = rtgwg@ietf.org >>> Objet : Re: [homenet] Question for you >>>=20 >>> I'm in complete agreement with Fred. The areas where the existing >>> link-state protocols may need to be extended are auto-configuration = and, >>> potentially, inter-area policies. >>> I don't think my wife would want a lossy network in our house ;^) >>> Thanks, Acee On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote: >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> Since you asked, *I* think that a homenet has functional overlap >>>>> (what I called "at least a smaller and slightly different subset" = in >>>>> my email) in terms of requirements to LLNs. At first blush, it = looks >>>>> like RPL has lots of functionality - perhaps more than we really = need >>>>> for homenet, and by your own admission more than you need for = LLN's - >>>>> but will hold reservation on what I think best fits the bill until = we >>>>> see Fred's analysis, hear from others, etc. >>>>=20 >>>> My two yen, which may be all it's worth... >>>>=20 >>>> If I were a Linksys/D-Link/NetGear/* product manager asking about = what >>>> protocols to put in, I wouldn't be asking about what still exists = in >>>> Internet Drafts and is thought by the engineers designing it to be >>>> better than sliced bread, but about what was inexpensive to = implement, >>>> likely to be close to bug-free, and definitively accomplished the = goal. >>>> I note that most routers for the IPv4 residential routing = marketplace >>>> implement RIPv2; I know of one that implements no routing protocol, = one >>>> that implements RIPv2 and RIPv1 (!), and one that implements RIPv2 = and >>>> OSPF (don't ask which they are, I don't remember). This is from a >>>> google search of residential routers a few months ago and covered >>>> perhaps 20 products from half as many vendors. So my first = inclination >>>> is to say that for a residential IPv6 network, RIPng is probably an >>>> image match for those vendors. >>>>=20 >>>> I have a personal bias in the direction of OSPF or IS-IS; I think = that >>>> once the code is debugged, SPF-based protocols are more stable (no >>>> count-to-infinity), given a reasonable set of defaults generate far >>>> more stable networks, and definitively know when there is more than = one >>>> router on a LAN, which can be important in subnet distribution. >>>>=20 >>>> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the = field >>>> in multiple interoperable implementations. >>>>=20 >>>> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest = that >>>> folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and = ask >>>> themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> homenet mailing list >>>> homenet@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Oct 2 19:11:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812A221F8696; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 19:11:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 84EiZ8Lb027i; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 19:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79BEB21F8634; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 19:11:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.60 Message-ID: <20111003021143.10880.71075.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 19:11:43 -0700 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-03.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 02:11:44 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Definition of Managed Objects for the Manet Simplified M= ulticast Framework Relay Set Process Author(s) : Robert G. Cole Joseph Macker Brian Adamson Sean Harnedy Filename : draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-03.txt Pages : 55 Date : 2011-10-02 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes objects for configuring aspects of the Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF) process for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs). The SMF-MIB also reports state information, performance metrics, and notifications. In addition to configuration, the additional state and performance information is useful to operators troubleshooting multicast forwarding problems. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib-03.txt From jpv@cisco.com Mon Oct 3 06:59:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12ED921F8B28; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 06:59:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.925, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BsT4IcJlLIIM; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 06:59:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-3.cisco.com (ams-iport-3.cisco.com [144.254.224.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5FD321F8B12; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 06:59:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=3221; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317650538; x=1318860138; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=yJXjgXbvFieq6gtR53/Gyg4zROJLH7oFW/LhTliunic=; b=QC9TwznMXKcaCu1osaWHZpmnspxMKD6f157RP7Eci0cIhKLvft7AKlCK X9AA+WBLlvLUTv96drLzMCc3/tQsn1x/bZXemahLaNBvaupN52Y5XnsVD hO7xsCWdewD2ZGbH36o1/9Pe2kOd1cd9zWQXHPjJMxacVNnaF930GL0yG k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EABbAiU5Io8US/2dsb2JhbABBqACBBYFTAQEBAwEBAQEPAVsLEAsYFRknMAYTIodZBpsZAZ03A4QIgjhhBJNghSUJjBI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,479,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="209701" Received: from bgl-core-3.cisco.com ([72.163.197.18]) by ams-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2011 14:01:56 +0000 Received: from xbh-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com (xbh-hkg-411.cisco.com [64.104.123.72]) by bgl-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p93E1tN5015015; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:01:56 GMT Received: from xfe-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com ([64.104.123.70]) by xbh-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:01:55 +0800 Received: from [10.60.114.231] ([10.60.114.231]) by xfe-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:01:55 +0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: JP Vasseur In-Reply-To: <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:01:50 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> To: Fred Baker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2011 14:01:55.0377 (UTC) FILETIME=[0250D210:01CC81D5] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 07:50:42 -0700 Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , homenet@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:59:17 -0000 On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Fred Baker wrote: >=20 > On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: >=20 >> Since you asked, *I* think that a homenet has functional overlap = (what I called "at least a smaller and slightly different subset" in my = email) in terms of requirements to LLNs. At first blush, it looks like = RPL has lots of functionality - perhaps more than we really need for = homenet, and by your own admission more than you need for LLN's - but = will hold reservation on what I think best fits the bill until we see = Fred's analysis, hear from others, etc.=20 >=20 > My two yen, which may be all it's worth... >=20 > If I were a Linksys/D-Link/NetGear/* product manager asking about what = protocols to put in, I wouldn't be asking about what still exists in = Internet Drafts and is thought by the engineers designing it to be = better than sliced bread, but about what was inexpensive to implement, = likely to be close to bug-free, and definitively accomplished the goal. = I note that most routers for the IPv4 residential routing marketplace = implement RIPv2; I know of one that implements no routing protocol, one = that implements RIPv2 and RIPv1 (!), and one that implements RIPv2 and = OSPF (don't ask which they are, I don't remember). This is from a google = search of residential routers a few months ago and covered perhaps 20 = products from half as many vendors. So my first inclination is to say = that for a residential IPv6 network, RIPng is probably an image match = for those vendors. >=20 > I have a personal bias in the direction of OSPF or IS-IS; I think that = once the code is debugged, SPF-based protocols are more stable (no = count-to-infinity), given a reasonable set of defaults generate far more = stable networks, and definitively know when there is more than one = router on a LAN, which can be important in subnet distribution.=20 I spent enough years on OSPF and ISIS to agree with you that these = protocols are well proven, widely deployed with the number of=20 recent improvements (MTR, fast convergence, =85) to name a few are = particularly appealing. But before choosing a routing protocol the first step consists of listing the requirements. In LLN, as you = rightly pointed out, "smart objects" have a set of constraints in terms of resources =85 far from where we are on traditional routers =85 Thus I = would strongly encourage to list the set of requirements for this type of devices before making any sort of selection on the routing = protocol of choice, taking into account where we will be in a few years when the number of these objects will not be limited to a few dozens, = the LSDB *will* grow =85=20 >=20 > My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the field = in multiple interoperable implementations.=20 >=20 > As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest that = folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask = themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From jpv@cisco.com Mon Oct 3 07:06:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4333321F8B65; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:06:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VwhsWpEnLtkT; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1774421F8B67; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:06:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=25663; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317650962; x=1318860562; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=RtK+j3xpaY94bbYVNqKb98mWHEf7rjwsKTXqwCKWi5c=; b=nGYez50rU1nr1f0bQufjvqDicdSyMpSe8Ho3iD6gI3iISxG9v2igG3jP YhGQvcHHO6FsI6r95SMHEGh3gH18OsJPeR2HHzF+ioFSwIOZ4N6GYtTw/ HUE2PnEhaCRx2rjE18CUa/byfiTiFMavspyREBoQo02jWRPzneV/pJteb c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EACTBiU6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABBqACBBYFTAQEBAwEBAQEPAQcDEEELBQcECw4DBAEBAScHJx8JCAYTGweHWQabJwGdNwOGQGEEk2CFJQmMEg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,479,1312156800"; d="scan'208,217";a="5616848" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2011 14:09:22 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p93E9Lbc017226; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:09:21 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.32]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:09:21 -0700 Received: from [10.60.114.231] ([10.60.114.231]) by xfe-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:09:20 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_524F1856-FAC7-4746-8A42-E35165549907" From: JP Vasseur In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:09:17 +0200 Message-Id: References: To: Don Sturek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2011 14:09:20.0655 (UTC) FILETIME=[0BB8D9F0:01CC81D6] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 07:50:42 -0700 Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , Acee Lindem , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , homenet@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:06:22 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_524F1856-FAC7-4746-8A42-E35165549907 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 100% agreeing with you Don. On Oct 1, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > To add one more point to Fred's note: I think it is important to get = a > commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or = all > of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing. >=20 > I agree with Fred that having individual CPE vendors cobbling together > RFCs will not yield a bullet proof home networking solution and that = will > kill the work in Homenet if customer support is needed. >=20 > Don >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 9/30/11 11:26 AM, "Fred Baker" wrote: >=20 > >As I understand it, we have made the case that there is a place for > >routing in at least some homes and in SOHO networks, and we should = say > >what protocols manufacturers should consider implementing in = equipment > >they sell. Two significant parts of the issue there, as you know, are > >operational expense and cost of goods. Margins in residential routers = are > >thin enough that manufacturers (one of which you know from the = inside) > >essentially lose their entire profit margin if they pick up the phone = for > >a trouble call, and in addition the memory to store the code and = data, > >and the code itself, cost money on a COGS basis. Manufacturers want = to be > >able to buy trouble-free code for a predictable price, put it in the > >system, and forget the system. > > > >Which argues for proven specifications and implementations that have = been > >field proven to interoperate when used in anger. > > > >To my knowledge, this doesn't automatically imply "give me that old = time > >religion". It does call for proven (and preferably documented) > >interoperability between numerous independent complete = implementations, > >or proven interoperability of a common profile of a protocol, an = exercise > >I have suggested to some proponents of your favorite protocol is good = for > >the soul. RFC 1246 comes to mind. > > > >By the way, let me clarify a point that you may be confused on. There = are > >detailed interoperability reports for RIPv2, OSPFv2, BGP[1234], and I > >think IPv4/IS-IS. To my knowledge, there has been interoperability > >testing of RIPng, OSPFv3, BGP-for-IPv6, and IPv6/IS-IS, all of which = are > >in use in production networks, but the test documentation is a trifle > >thin. So I'm not asking of your favorite protocol or a dozen others = that > >one could discuss something I think should let slide for the = traditional > >ones. I am simply asking that the claims for the protocols be backed = with > >interoperability testing, RFCs, Security Directorate reviews, and so = on. > > > >On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > > > >> Hello Cedric: > >> > >> I have the same questions. Furthermore, I'd wish to understand = better: > >> > >> *** whether the goal is limited to provide a best practice based on > >>"established" ICT technologies > >> > >> There are other "established" technologies. For instance there is > >>extensive networking experience in industrial networks, solving > >>different problems under different constraints. Same goes in AMI/AMR > >>networks, and to a lesser extent in Home, commercial and building > >>automation. Some groups in the IETF have finally started to pay > >>attention and build on that experience. Even if the resulting > >>technologies (e.g. ZigbeeIP and ISA100.11a) are fairly recent, the = scale > >>is such that over a few years we have seen unprecedented amounts of > >>implementations, interop and compliance tests (e.g. under IPSO and = WCI). > >> > >> Also, if we map home use cases with the routing technologies that > >>applied today, we see that at the moment the traditional IGPs do not > >>play much role, at least from the home standpoint: > >> - Internet to Home (Content consumption) is not a Home problem > >> - Home to Internet (metering, P2P) is a default route > >> - Home to Home (Content and Access sharing) is dominated by OLSR. > >> - Inside Home (Content and Device sharing) is single subnet, solved > >>reactively by ARP or ND. > >> - Inside Home (Command & Control, Automation) meshing is = proprietary > >>though going 6LoWPAN and RPL. > >> > >> In any fashion, we can solve an additional problem of our own = making > >>that would require our beloved ICT IGPs to be injected in the Home > >>network with always-on routers in each room or we can start = producing > >>best practices on how the above can to be done with the technologies > >>that are already in place. Or both? > >> > >> *** whether we have an assumption of a plethora of power > >> > >> Year over year, we've seen the simplest devices migrate from a > >>totally-switched-off mode to some more and more power greedy = sleeping > >>and always-on modes. > >> Always-on displays and LEDs appears fancy to the consumer but are = of > >>consequence on the family budget and at the scale of a city, result = in > >>measurable pollution. > >> And we've been connecting more and more devices to the home power > >>distribution, devices that would not exist 10-20 years ago. > >> We know how power-greedy traditional ICT technologies are; people = do > >>not want a new heating system that they cannot even stop in summer. > >> My take is that whatever this group produces has to be justified in > >>terms of power budget as it has to be justified in other terms like > >>usability and security. > >> > >> > >> *** if HOMENET is targeting home gateways and large home cinema = gear > >>only, and whether we have an assumption of cat 5/6 cabling > >> > >> This case is probably the low hanging fruit and that there is an > >>immediate need to solve a number of problems there. If that's what = the > >>group is pursuing for the time being, well, that's fine as long as = it's > >>very clear to everybody. But the rest of the world is low power and > >>lossy. Apart from certain ecological niches (that's datacenter = mostly) > >>about all Internet-connected devices have evolved the wireless = trait, > >>even if the most traditional devices can still use wires. The new = trait > >>has lowered dramatically the cost and complexity of accessing the > >>Internet, which in turn allowed the introduction of new species of > >>internet-connected devices that now thrive under the name of Things. = At > >>some point we'll have to address that too. > >> > >> I do not know how that converts into cents at the current rate... > >> > >> Pascal > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: C Chauvenet [mailto:c.chauvenet@watteco.com] > >> Sent: jeudi 29 septembre 2011 17:23 > >> To: Acee Lindem; Fred Baker (fred) > >> Cc: Mark Townsley; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); MANET IETF; > >>homenet@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: [homenet] Question for you > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> " I don't think my wife would want a lossy network in our house = ;^)" : > >> > >> Nobody wants a lossy network, but the technology you are using may > >>create lossy links... > >> > >> I may have miss something in the Homenet scope. > >> > >> In the scope of Homenet, is every device in the house runing over a > >>*robust* link (Bit Error Rate below 1 % at the PHY level) ? > >> > >> Furthermore do these devices could have some high > >>Power/Computation/Size/Cost constraints ? > >> > >> I fail to see the kind of technologies and devices that are = targeting. > >> > >> Thanks for the clarification. > >> > >> C=E9dric . > >> > >> -----Message d'origine----- > >> De : Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] Envoy=E9 : jeudi = 29 > >>septembre 2011 16:44 =C0 : Fred Baker Cc : Mark Townsley; C = Chauvenet; > >>Pascal Thubert (pthubert); MANET IETF; homenet@ietf.org; = rtgwg@ietf.org > >>Objet : Re: [homenet] Question for you > >> > >> I'm in complete agreement with Fred. The areas where the existing > >>link-state protocols may need to be extended are auto-configuration = and, > >>potentially, inter-area policies. > >> I don't think my wife would want a lossy network in our house ;^) > >>Thanks, Acee On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: > >>> > >>>> Since you asked, *I* think that a homenet has functional overlap > >>>>(what I called "at least a smaller and slightly different subset" = in > >>>>my email) in terms of requirements to LLNs. At first blush, it = looks > >>>>like RPL has lots of functionality - perhaps more than we really = need > >>>>for homenet, and by your own admission more than you need for = LLN's - > >>>>but will hold reservation on what I think best fits the bill until = we > >>>>see Fred's analysis, hear from others, etc. > >>> > >>> My two yen, which may be all it's worth... > >>> > >>> If I were a Linksys/D-Link/NetGear/* product manager asking about = what > >>>protocols to put in, I wouldn't be asking about what still exists = in > >>>Internet Drafts and is thought by the engineers designing it to be > >>>better than sliced bread, but about what was inexpensive to = implement, > >>>likely to be close to bug-free, and definitively accomplished the = goal. > >>>I note that most routers for the IPv4 residential routing = marketplace > >>>implement RIPv2; I know of one that implements no routing protocol, = one > >>>that implements RIPv2 and RIPv1 (!), and one that implements RIPv2 = and > >>>OSPF (don't ask which they are, I don't remember). This is from a > >>>google search of residential routers a few months ago and covered > >>>perhaps 20 products from half as many vendors. So my first = inclination > >>>is to say that for a residential IPv6 network, RIPng is probably an > >>>image match for those vendors. > >>> > >>> I have a personal bias in the direction of OSPF or IS-IS; I think = that > >>>once the code is debugged, SPF-based protocols are more stable (no > >>>count-to-infinity), given a reasonable set of defaults generate far > >>>more stable networks, and definitively know when there is more than = one > >>>router on a LAN, which can be important in subnet distribution. > >>> > >>> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the = field > >>>in multiple interoperable implementations. > >>> > >>> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest = that > >>>folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and = ask > >>>themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> homenet mailing list > >>> homenet@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > >> > >> > >> > > > >_______________________________________________ > >manet mailing list > >manet@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet --Apple-Mail=_524F1856-FAC7-4746-8A42-E35165549907 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 100% = agreeing with you Don.

On Oct 1, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Don = Sturek wrote:

Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you
To add = one more point to Fred's note:  I think it is important to get = a
commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or = all
of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing.

I agree with Fred that having individual CPE vendors cobbling = together
RFCs will not yield a bullet proof home networking solution and that = will
kill the work in Homenet if customer support is needed.

Don



On 9/30/11 11:26 AM, "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

>As I understand it, we have made the case that there is a place = for
>routing in at least some homes and in SOHO networks, and we should = say
>what protocols manufacturers should consider implementing in = equipment
>they sell. Two significant parts of the issue there, as you know, = are
>operational expense and cost of goods. Margins in residential = routers are
>thin enough that manufacturers (one of which you know from the = inside)
>essentially lose their entire profit margin if they pick up the = phone for
>a trouble call, and in addition the memory to store the code and = data,
>and the code itself, cost money on a COGS basis. Manufacturers want = to be
>able to buy trouble-free code for a predictable price, put it in = the
>system, and forget the system.
>
>Which argues for proven specifications and implementations that have = been
>field proven to interoperate when used in anger.
>
>To my knowledge, this doesn't automatically imply "give me that old = time
>religion". It does call for proven (and preferably documented)
>interoperability between numerous independent complete = implementations,
>or proven interoperability of a common profile of a protocol, an = exercise
>I have suggested to some proponents of your favorite protocol is = good for
>the soul. RFC 1246 comes to mind.
>
>By the way, let me clarify a point that you may be confused on. = There are
>detailed interoperability reports for RIPv2, OSPFv2, BGP[1234], and = I
>think IPv4/IS-IS. To my knowledge, there has been = interoperability
>testing of RIPng, OSPFv3, BGP-for-IPv6, and IPv6/IS-IS, all of which = are
>in use in production networks, but the test documentation is a = trifle
>thin. So I'm not asking of your favorite protocol or a dozen others = that
>one could discuss something I think should let slide for the = traditional
>ones. I am simply asking that the claims for the protocols be backed = with
>interoperability testing, RFCs, Security Directorate reviews, and so = on.
>
>On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>
>> Hello Cedric:
>>
>> I have the same questions. Furthermore, I'd wish to understand = better:
>>
>> *** whether the goal is limited to provide a best practice = based on
>>"established" ICT technologies
>>
>> There are other "established" technologies. For instance there = is
>>extensive networking experience in industrial networks, = solving
>>different problems under different constraints. Same goes in = AMI/AMR
>>networks, and to a lesser extent in Home, commercial and = building
>>automation. Some groups in the IETF have finally started to = pay
>>attention and build on that experience. Even if the = resulting
>>technologies (e.g. ZigbeeIP and ISA100.11a) are fairly recent, = the scale
>>is such that over a few years we have seen unprecedented amounts = of
>>implementations, interop and compliance tests (e.g. under IPSO = and WCI).
>>
>> Also, if we map home use cases with the routing technologies = that
>>applied today, we see that at the moment the traditional IGPs do = not
>>play much role, at least from the home standpoint:
>> - Internet to Home (Content consumption) is not a Home = problem
>> - Home to Internet (metering, P2P)  is a default route
>> - Home to Home (Content and Access sharing) is dominated by = OLSR.
>> - Inside Home (Content and Device sharing) is single subnet, = solved
>>reactively by ARP or ND.
>> - Inside Home (Command & Control, Automation) meshing is = proprietary
>>though going 6LoWPAN and RPL.
>>
>> In any fashion, we can solve an additional problem of our own = making
>>that would require our beloved ICT IGPs to be injected in the = Home
>>network with always-on routers in each room or we can start = producing
>>best practices on how the above can to be done with the = technologies
>>that are already in place. Or both?
>>
>> *** whether we have an assumption of a plethora of power
>>
>> Year over year, we've seen the simplest devices migrate from = a
>>totally-switched-off mode to some more and more power greedy = sleeping
>>and always-on modes.
>> Always-on displays and LEDs appears fancy to the consumer but = are of
>>consequence on the family budget and at the scale of a city, = result in
>>measurable pollution.
>> And we've been connecting more and more devices to the home = power
>>distribution, devices that would not exist 10-20 years ago.
>> We know how power-greedy traditional ICT technologies are; = people do
>>not want a new heating system that they cannot even stop in = summer.
>> My take is that whatever this group produces has to be = justified in
>>terms of power budget as it has to be justified in other terms = like
>>usability and security.
>>
>>
>> *** if HOMENET is targeting home gateways and large home cinema = gear
>>only, and whether we have an assumption of cat 5/6 cabling
>>
>> This case is probably the low hanging fruit and that there is = an
>>immediate need to solve a number of problems there. If that's = what the
>>group is pursuing for the time being, well, that's fine as long = as it's
>>very clear to everybody. But the rest of the world is low power = and
>>lossy. Apart from certain ecological niches (that's datacenter = mostly)
>>about all Internet-connected devices have evolved the wireless = trait,
>>even if the most traditional devices can still use wires. The = new trait
>>has lowered dramatically the cost and complexity of accessing = the
>>Internet, which in turn allowed the introduction of new species = of
>>internet-connected devices that now thrive under the name of = Things. At
>>some point we'll have to address that too.
>>
>> I do not know how that converts into cents at the current = rate...
>>
>> Pascal
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: C Chauvenet [mailto:c.chauvenet@watteco.com= ]
>> Sent: jeudi 29 septembre 2011 17:23
>> To: Acee Lindem; Fred Baker (fred)
>> Cc: Mark Townsley; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); MANET IETF;
>>homenet@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: [homenet] Question for you
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> " I don't think my wife would want a lossy network in our house = ;^)" :
>>
>> Nobody wants a lossy network, but the technology you are using = may
>>create lossy links...
>>
>> I may have miss something in the Homenet scope.
>>
>> In the scope of Homenet, is every device in the house runing = over a
>>*robust* link (Bit Error Rate below 1 % at the PHY level) ?
>>
>> Furthermore do these devices could have some high
>>Power/Computation/Size/Cost constraints ?
>>
>> I fail to see the kind of technologies and devices that are = targeting.
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification.
>>
>> C=E9dric .
>>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] Envoy=E9 : jeudi 29
>>septembre 2011 16:44 =C0 : Fred Baker Cc : Mark Townsley; C = Chauvenet;
>>Pascal Thubert (pthubert); MANET IETF; homenet@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
>>Objet : Re: [homenet] Question for you
>>
>> I'm in complete agreement with Fred. The areas where the = existing
>>link-state protocols may need to be extended are = auto-configuration and,
>>potentially, inter-area policies.
>> I don't think my wife would want a lossy network in our house = ;^)
>>Thanks, Acee On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mark Townsley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since you asked, *I* think that a homenet has = functional overlap
>>>>(what I called "at least a smaller and slightly = different subset" in
>>>>my email) in terms of requirements to LLNs. At first = blush, it looks
>>>>like RPL has lots of functionality - perhaps more than = we really need
>>>>for homenet, and by your own admission more than you = need for LLN's -
>>>>but will hold reservation on what I think best fits the = bill until we
>>>>see Fred's analysis, hear from others, etc.
>>>
>>> My two yen, which may be all it's worth...
>>>
>>> If I were a Linksys/D-Link/NetGear/* product manager asking = about what
>>>protocols to put in, I wouldn't be asking about what still = exists in
>>>Internet Drafts and is thought by the engineers designing it = to be
>>>better than sliced bread, but about what was inexpensive to = implement,
>>>likely to be close to bug-free, and definitively = accomplished the goal.
>>>I note that most routers for the IPv4 residential routing = marketplace
>>>implement RIPv2; I know of one that implements no routing = protocol, one
>>>that implements RIPv2 and RIPv1 (!), and one that implements = RIPv2 and
>>>OSPF (don't ask which they are, I don't remember). This is = from a
>>>google search of residential routers a few months ago and = covered
>>>perhaps 20 products from half as many vendors. So my first = inclination
>>>is to say that for a residential IPv6 network, RIPng is = probably an
>>>image match for those vendors.
>>>
>>> I have a personal bias in the direction of OSPF or IS-IS; I = think that
>>>once the code is debugged, SPF-based protocols are more = stable (no
>>>count-to-infinity), given a reasonable set of defaults = generate far
>>>more stable networks, and definitively know when there is = more than one
>>>router on a LAN, which can be important in subnet = distribution.
>>>
>>> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in = the field
>>>in multiple interoperable implementations.
>>>
>>> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd = suggest that
>>>folks read https://tools.i= etf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask
>>>themselves why that level of interoperability isn't = mandatory.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> homenet mailing list
>>> homenet@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.or= g/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>manet mailing list
>manet@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/manet


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/manet

= --Apple-Mail=_524F1856-FAC7-4746-8A42-E35165549907-- From acee.lindem@ericsson.com Mon Oct 3 07:21:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3E121F8B42; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:21:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.555 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mNSUcI4YtZBJ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC92A21F8B4A; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p93EOVnB016847; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:24:32 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.60]) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:24:26 -0400 From: Acee Lindem To: JP Vasseur Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:24:26 -0400 Thread-Topic: [homenet] Question for you Thread-Index: AcyB2Ceq6pwYuC1ATY2JzWbYuLz6Zw== Message-ID: References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 07:50:42 -0700 Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , Fred Baker , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:21:57 -0000 Hey JP, On Oct 3, 2011, at 10:01 AM, JP Vasseur wrote: >=20 > On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Fred Baker wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: >>=20 >>> Since you asked, *I* think that a homenet has functional overlap (what = I called "at least a smaller and slightly different subset" in my email) in= terms of requirements to LLNs. At first blush, it looks like RPL has lots = of functionality - perhaps more than we really need for homenet, and by you= r own admission more than you need for LLN's - but will hold reservation on= what I think best fits the bill until we see Fred's analysis, hear from ot= hers, etc.=20 >>=20 >> My two yen, which may be all it's worth... >>=20 >> If I were a Linksys/D-Link/NetGear/* product manager asking about what p= rotocols to put in, I wouldn't be asking about what still exists in Interne= t Drafts and is thought by the engineers designing it to be better than sli= ced bread, but about what was inexpensive to implement, likely to be close = to bug-free, and definitively accomplished the goal. I note that most route= rs for the IPv4 residential routing marketplace implement RIPv2; I know of = one that implements no routing protocol, one that implements RIPv2 and RIPv= 1 (!), and one that implements RIPv2 and OSPF (don't ask which they are, I = don't remember). This is from a google search of residential routers a few = months ago and covered perhaps 20 products from half as many vendors. So my= first inclination is to say that for a residential IPv6 network, RIPng is = probably an image match for those vendors. >>=20 >> I have a personal bias in the direction of OSPF or IS-IS; I think that o= nce the code is debugged, SPF-based protocols are more stable (no count-to-= infinity), given a reasonable set of defaults generate far more stable netw= orks, and definitively know when there is more than one router on a LAN, wh= ich can be important in subnet distribution.=20 >=20 > I spent enough years on OSPF and ISIS to agree with you that these protoc= ols are well proven, widely deployed with the number of=20 > recent improvements (MTR, fast convergence, =85) to name a few are partic= ularly appealing. But before choosing a routing protocol > the first step consists of listing the requirements. In LLN, as you right= ly pointed out, "smart objects" have a set of constraints in terms > of resources =85 far from where we are on traditional routers =85 Thus I = would strongly encourage to list the set of requirements for this > type of devices before making any sort of selection on the routing protoc= ol of choice, taking into account where we will be in a few years > when the number of these objects will not be limited to a few dozens, the= LSDB *will* grow =85=20 I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with their sma= rt objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and wireless ne= tworks, they will need to do so through a border router supporting both env= ironments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that meets all requirements for= every possible device in the home.=20 Thanks, Acee=20 >=20 >>=20 >> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the field in= multiple interoperable implementations.=20 >>=20 >> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest that fol= ks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask themselve= s why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >=20 > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From jpv@cisco.com Mon Oct 3 07:24:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048D421F8B42; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:24:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.088 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.489, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VxHlbduny7LV; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A77421F8B44; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:24:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=4147; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317652030; x=1318861630; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=w1iDIrttuR9AFBLxAcxaHhhxb0QdgMPYXINpyQRQV0I=; b=jSMais6RnStApBVpLVJKeibE4fVvXIzVvlfFLMI2lePmm/omY9Ot9R5E YJj1V2DY22OwWlcX00RVj2roF2y7SodGDlzsWSQqM96pxemfVUGdX6p0r uq011kbxdKubjaIiGI7LKgH2KDX1AA2cE6RvS/4q7q2Aji3BofUiqrMgU Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAN/FiU5Io8UQ/2dsb2JhbABBqAGBBYFTAQEBAwEBAQEPAVsLBQsLGBUZJzAGEyKHWQabPwGdPwOECII4YQSTYIUlCYwS X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,479,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="211220" Received: from bgl-core-1.cisco.com ([72.163.197.16]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2011 14:27:07 +0000 Received: from xbh-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com (xbh-hkg-411.cisco.com [64.104.123.72]) by bgl-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p93ER6Mf007422; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:27:06 GMT Received: from xfe-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com ([64.104.123.70]) by xbh-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:27:06 +0800 Received: from [10.60.114.231] ([10.60.114.231]) by xfe-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:27:05 +0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: JP Vasseur In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:27:02 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <667EF281-69A7-4F24-B426-DBD524F2CFC1@cisco.com> References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> To: Acee Lindem X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2011 14:27:05.0899 (UTC) FILETIME=[86A82FB0:01CC81D8] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 07:50:42 -0700 Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , Fred Baker , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:24:12 -0000 Hey Acee, On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > Hey JP, >=20 > On Oct 3, 2011, at 10:01 AM, JP Vasseur wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Fred Baker wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Since you asked, *I* think that a homenet has functional overlap = (what I called "at least a smaller and slightly different subset" in my = email) in terms of requirements to LLNs. At first blush, it looks like = RPL has lots of functionality - perhaps more than we really need for = homenet, and by your own admission more than you need for LLN's - but = will hold reservation on what I think best fits the bill until we see = Fred's analysis, hear from others, etc.=20 >>>=20 >>> My two yen, which may be all it's worth... >>>=20 >>> If I were a Linksys/D-Link/NetGear/* product manager asking about = what protocols to put in, I wouldn't be asking about what still exists = in Internet Drafts and is thought by the engineers designing it to be = better than sliced bread, but about what was inexpensive to implement, = likely to be close to bug-free, and definitively accomplished the goal. = I note that most routers for the IPv4 residential routing marketplace = implement RIPv2; I know of one that implements no routing protocol, one = that implements RIPv2 and RIPv1 (!), and one that implements RIPv2 and = OSPF (don't ask which they are, I don't remember). This is from a google = search of residential routers a few months ago and covered perhaps 20 = products from half as many vendors. So my first inclination is to say = that for a residential IPv6 network, RIPng is probably an image match = for those vendors. >>>=20 >>> I have a personal bias in the direction of OSPF or IS-IS; I think = that once the code is debugged, SPF-based protocols are more stable (no = count-to-infinity), given a reasonable set of defaults generate far more = stable networks, and definitively know when there is more than one = router on a LAN, which can be important in subnet distribution.=20 >>=20 >> I spent enough years on OSPF and ISIS to agree with you that these = protocols are well proven, widely deployed with the number of=20 >> recent improvements (MTR, fast convergence, =85) to name a few are = particularly appealing. But before choosing a routing protocol >> the first step consists of listing the requirements. In LLN, as you = rightly pointed out, "smart objects" have a set of constraints in terms >> of resources =85 far from where we are on traditional routers =85 = Thus I would strongly encourage to list the set of requirements for this >> type of devices before making any sort of selection on the routing = protocol of choice, taking into account where we will be in a few years >> when the number of these objects will not be limited to a few dozens, = the LSDB *will* grow =85=20 >=20 > I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with = their smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and = wireless networks, they will need to do so through a border router = supporting both environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that = meets all requirements for every possible device in the home.=20 >=20 100% agreeing with you !! This is why I was limiting my comments to = "constrained objects" - Very much in line with you. Cheers. JP. > Thanks, > Acee=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >>=20 >>>=20 >>> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the = field in multiple interoperable implementations.=20 >>>=20 >>> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest that = folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask = themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> homenet mailing list >>> homenet@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >=20 From bingxuere@gmail.com Mon Oct 3 08:30:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EBC821F8B6F; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:30:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.529 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DJqY3MNbw7qq; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:30:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6CBB21F8B6B; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iaby26 with SMTP id y26so6525242iab.31 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 08:33:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=xbstRIVnA5yg8Y10cKeOIzLdtKBFo8pidW1/bVximlQ=; b=jRj1FRHe8ID7J/RJVIKSLZbsboTDszu/VzA+EfAlY6va3ifFNe0MAD3ykARg0lrqIK slTKVlO8JT/vSRQrG4yVFrXt7/t+OIfxSrW3lcrWIOzMsGfTucoK797ytFsfFFMvsRAC pQei1GYN4wI5LjnHjqzDsGamOgICHhGqaoMyM= Received: by 10.43.46.9 with SMTP id um9mr65671icb.178.1317656007280; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 08:33:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.219.194 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:33:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> From: Qiong Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 23:33:06 +0800 Message-ID: To: Acee Lindem Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec52997434008ab04ae66b286 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 08:48:48 -0700 Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Fred Baker , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:30:25 -0000 --bcaec52997434008ab04ae66b286 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, Acee, Agree. I think the HOMENET requirements should be derived from major devices in the home network scenario. Maybe currently we should firstly focus on multiple router scenario for traditional fixed and wireless network for multiple services (especially WiFi) , and then introduce LLN network as well for smart objects in the same environment, together with the homenet architecture and new model in the future. Best wishes Qiong > > I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with their > smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and wireless > networks, they will need to do so through a border router supporting both > environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that meets all requirements > for every possible device in the home. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > > >> > >> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the field in > multiple interoperable implementations. > >> > >> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest that > folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask > themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> homenet mailing list > >> homenet@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > > > _______________________________________________ > > homenet mailing list > > homenet@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > --bcaec52997434008ab04ae66b286 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Acee,

Agree.=C2=A0I think the HOMENET requirements s= hould be derived from major devices in the home network scenario. Maybe cur= rently we should firstly focus on multiple router=C2=A0scenario for=C2=A0tr= aditional=C2=A0fixed and wireless network for multiple services (especially= WiFi) , and then introduce LLN network as well for smart objects in the sa= me environment, together with the homenet architecture and new model in the= future.=C2=A0

Best wishes=C2=A0

Qiong=C2=A0
=




I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with the= ir smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and wirel= ess networks, they will need to do so through a border router supporting bo= th environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that meets all requir= ements for every possible device in the home.

Thanks,
Acee



>
>>
>> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in th= e field in multiple interoperable implementations.
>>
>> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd sugges= t that folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory= .
>> _______________________________________________
>> homenet mailing list
>> homenet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

--bcaec52997434008ab04ae66b286-- From rturner@amalfisystems.com Mon Oct 3 08:55:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E43F21F8BDC; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:55:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y7G2kXP5S88N; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:55:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omr8.networksolutionsemail.com (omr8.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8A521F8B70; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:55:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cm-omr10 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr8.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p93FwdUJ011335; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:58:39 -0400 X-Authenticated-IP: 98.151.18.158 Received: from [98.151.18.158] ([98.151.18.158:62741] helo=[192.168.1.105]) by cm-omr10 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTP id 85/D8-03335-DABD98E4; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:58:39 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-47901164 From: Randy Turner In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:58:37 -0700 Message-Id: References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> To: Qiong X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 08:59:34 -0700 Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Fred Baker , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:55:39 -0000 --Apple-Mail-1-47901164 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I would hope that we would NOT be seriously considering OSPF or IS-IS in = the home...this seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. How = many routes are we talking about for a home network? I don't believe = any enterprise routing protocol was designed for a "zeroconf" or = "zeroadmin" type of environment. Our customers won't even know what an = IP address is. Seems like a "RIP-like" (around the same scope of complexity) would be = enough for a homenet. I'm curious to see what comes out of the LLN = discussion. The "filter" for any of these decisions should probably always be a = "zeroconf" or "zeroadmin" scenario -- if a proposed approach to a = problem can't exist in a "zeroconf/admin" environment, then I would = think it would not be the right choice. Also, as a "first cut" = solution, we I think we should be focused on the 80% use-case, not the = fringe. The participants of this working group, and their respective = home networking setups, are probably not our "typical" customer.=20 Randy On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Qiong wrote: > Hi, Acee, >=20 > Agree. I think the HOMENET requirements should be derived from major = devices in the home network scenario. Maybe currently we should firstly = focus on multiple router scenario for traditional fixed and wireless = network for multiple services (especially WiFi) , and then introduce LLN = network as well for smart objects in the same environment, together with = the homenet architecture and new model in the future.=20 >=20 > Best wishes=20 >=20 > Qiong=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with = their smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and = wireless networks, they will need to do so through a border router = supporting both environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that = meets all requirements for every possible device in the home. >=20 > Thanks, > Acee >=20 >=20 >=20 > > > >> > >> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the = field in multiple interoperable implementations. > >> > >> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest = that folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and = ask themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> homenet mailing list > >> homenet@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > > > _______________________________________________ > > homenet mailing list > > homenet@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >=20 > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >=20 > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet --Apple-Mail-1-47901164 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Seems like a = "RIP-like" (around the same scope of complexity) would be enough for a = homenet.  I'm curious to see what comes out of the LLN = discussion.

The "filter" for any of these = decisions should probably always be a "zeroconf" or "zeroadmin" scenario = -- if a proposed approach to a problem can't exist in a "zeroconf/admin" = environment, then I would think it would not be the right choice. =  Also, as a "first cut" solution, we I think we should be focused = on the 80% use-case, not the fringe.  The participants of this = working group, and their respective home networking setups, are probably = not our "typical" = customer. 

Randy

On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Qiong wrote:

Hi, = Acee,

Agree. I think the HOMENET requirements = should be derived from major devices in the home network scenario. Maybe = currently we should firstly focus on multiple router scenario = for traditional fixed and wireless network for multiple = services (especially WiFi) , and then introduce LLN network as well for = smart objects in the same environment, together with the homenet = architecture and new model in the future. 

Best = wishes 

Qiong 




I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with = their smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and = wireless networks, they will need to do so through a border router = supporting both environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that = meets all requirements for every possible device in the home.

Thanks,
Acee



>
>>
>> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the = field in multiple interoperable implementations.
>>
>> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest = that folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 = and ask themselves why that level of interoperability isn't = mandatory.
>> _______________________________________________
>> homenet mailing list
>> homenet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing = list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.= org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

= --Apple-Mail-1-47901164-- From tony.li@tony.li Mon Oct 3 09:13:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152C221F8BF4 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:13:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.457 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.457 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.142, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4KFV2e-o-I3S for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B25221F85BB for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta16.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.72]) by qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id gDUS1h0041ZMdJ4A7GGJg5; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:16:18 +0000 Received: from [10.21.78.187] ([128.107.239.233]) by omta16.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id gGEU1h01252qHCY8cGEXS8; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:14:52 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:15:58 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3B8B1C13-D999-4B58-94CF-5A0C64C41EF0@tony.li> References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> To: Randy Turner X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:15:01 -0700 Cc: C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Qiong , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:13:22 -0000 The problem with a RIP like protocol is that it will have RIP like = convergence properties. IMHO, that's no longer acceptable. Doing a subset of a LS protocol with a trivial default configuration = should not be unreasonable. Tony On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Randy Turner wrote: >=20 > I would hope that we would NOT be seriously considering OSPF or IS-IS = in the home...this seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. How = many routes are we talking about for a home network? I don't believe = any enterprise routing protocol was designed for a "zeroconf" or = "zeroadmin" type of environment. Our customers won't even know what an = IP address is. >=20 > Seems like a "RIP-like" (around the same scope of complexity) would be = enough for a homenet. I'm curious to see what comes out of the LLN = discussion. >=20 > The "filter" for any of these decisions should probably always be a = "zeroconf" or "zeroadmin" scenario -- if a proposed approach to a = problem can't exist in a "zeroconf/admin" environment, then I would = think it would not be the right choice. Also, as a "first cut" = solution, we I think we should be focused on the 80% use-case, not the = fringe. The participants of this working group, and their respective = home networking setups, are probably not our "typical" customer.=20 >=20 > Randy >=20 >=20 > On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Qiong wrote: >=20 >> Hi, Acee, >>=20 >> Agree. I think the HOMENET requirements should be derived from major = devices in the home network scenario. Maybe currently we should firstly = focus on multiple router scenario for traditional fixed and wireless = network for multiple services (especially WiFi) , and then introduce LLN = network as well for smart objects in the same environment, together with = the homenet architecture and new model in the future.=20 >>=20 >> Best wishes=20 >>=20 >> Qiong=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with = their smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and = wireless networks, they will need to do so through a border router = supporting both environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that = meets all requirements for every possible device in the home. >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Acee >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> > >> >> >> >> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the = field in multiple interoperable implementations. >> >> >> >> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest = that folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and = ask themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> homenet mailing list >> >> homenet@ietf.org >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > homenet mailing list >> > homenet@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >=20 > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rtgwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg From lorenzo@google.com Mon Oct 3 09:35:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549C521F8BAA for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:35:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.926 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I-kLuCQVBGfa for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:35:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F0D21F8BAC for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.12]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p93GcgZS016772 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:38:42 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1317659922; bh=hgmZYd9uaKbS3jRn9ZKM7N9/1Ro=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=WerfIXWu3IwdP7HKOKaGJxb2KfVpAsP7B1U6OOu8cmC3vHUKTFnS/VcSFg+vbcjTj 4JGLpJU1Iii9NpXjvfSIA== DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=W0RJ2XHiiA6Eng42zRBoN6PYM2anXL7PwzPltdF9qrD4TmLjuouZo9Y+X4hlIMCCt AI2sHruKHOw/scwPXb35A== Received: from yxt33 (yxt33.prod.google.com [10.190.5.225]) by hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p93GcMWj025806 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:38:41 -0700 Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so5275084yxt.17 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:38:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=vpVbhExkA2TIR1vbeIKb4J4VjFrzh1gD8jiY3i+VXJw=; b=QnS6jaqjGBbbsHrAgLaV5VctvJohIlIe15QHTJXPazVVaasePYXX9u4Iq3SCvv3EFs Zdup/jkZLg3sZecVJsmQ== Received: by 10.150.141.21 with SMTP id o21mr333224ybd.57.1317659920481; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.141.21 with SMTP id o21mr333205ybd.57.1317659920190; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:38:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.96.7 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:38:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> From: Lorenzo Colitti Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:38:20 -0700 Message-ID: To: Qiong Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd75f907a4bcc04ae679b14 X-System-Of-Record: true X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:46:52 -0700 Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Fred Baker , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:35:41 -0000 --000e0cd75f907a4bcc04ae679b14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 08:33, Qiong wrote: > Agree. I think the HOMENET requirements should be derived from major > devices in the home network scenario. Maybe currently we should firstly > focus on multiple router scenario for traditional fixed and wireless network > for multiple services (especially WiFi) > Agreed. While it's nice to think about abstract requirements and go off and pick a protocol that meets all of them, the truth is that if it doesn't get implemented, there's no point in doing so. If any of this is to be exist in the real world, then we need to start from the capabilities of devices that are currently common in home networking environments, because it's in those devices that this technology will be implemented first, if at all. --000e0cd75f907a4bcc04ae679b14 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 08:33, Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com>= ; wrote:
Agree.=A0I think the HOMENET requirements should be derived from major= devices in the home network scenario. Maybe currently we should firstly fo= cus on multiple router=A0scenario for=A0traditional=A0fixed and wireless ne= twork for multiple services (especially WiFi)
=A0
Agreed. While it's nice to think about = abstract requirements and go off and pick a protocol that meets all of them= , the truth is that if it doesn't get implemented, there's no point= in doing so. If any of this is to be exist in the real world, then we need= to start from the capabilities of devices that are currently common in hom= e networking environments, because it's in those devices that this tech= nology will be implemented first, if at all.
--000e0cd75f907a4bcc04ae679b14-- From lorenzo@google.com Mon Oct 3 09:47:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149C621F8C59 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:47:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.929 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.929 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rR3o319HiOHA for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5726021F8C4B for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.5]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p93Goo7Y027895 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:50:50 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1317660650; bh=H9csBGolB77SmudUcR8LDxa6e3A=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=dt381/41OrpO1Lgfamsq0rKpmEl4YhVE+FWPVRtShbtlKEG3B8iNNdJO/vtkezJLQ +dqB/wwkoTBbJOI0w9O1w== DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=mcy+MZLlQIEnBuk5NdA17TOnOBATr6EkWZPRVb13b5iRMZ2jeVTAPYqDhS7Oij0V8 XSa2v0BhhjjevzeuNB/4w== Received: from ywm3 (ywm3.prod.google.com [10.192.13.3]) by hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p93GoiH2005108 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:50:48 -0700 Received: by ywm3 with SMTP id 3so1486274ywm.17 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:50:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=W6nPTfiW7Sr3M9Z37R+fr5qeilxW67EGeiOX8HSCLac=; b=b9fPYPHjRk3g4bZkp5qsZdVAXp+p4Z8McVS/MvnOp4MJRzIp75HeYkatNlJIyUoYOO Y5FMIPrLV/0ef/9O1vBg== Received: by 10.150.137.5 with SMTP id k5mr341924ybd.114.1317660648315; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.137.5 with SMTP id k5mr341907ybd.114.1317660648143; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:50:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.96.7 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:50:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> From: Lorenzo Colitti Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:50:27 -0700 Message-ID: To: Randy Turner Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd3107addfacb04ae67c6c8 X-System-Of-Record: true X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:53:16 -0700 Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Qiong , Fred Baker , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:47:49 -0000 --000e0cd3107addfacb04ae67c6c8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 08:58, Randy Turner wrote: > I would hope that we would NOT be seriously considering OSPF or IS-IS in > the home...this seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. > If the devices we're talking about have enough resources to run them, and they have desirable properties that are useful in home networks, then what's the problem with either of these? Home gateways these days are capable of 1Gbps hardware forwarding and have pretty fast CPUs. For example, if there were a robust open-source version of IS-IS that didn't take up too much RAM and flash, you could define TLVs to implement zeroconf and you could get to something that works relatively quickly. --000e0cd3107addfacb04ae67c6c8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 08:58, Randy Turner <rturner@amalf= isystems.com> wrote:
I would hope that we would NOT be = seriously considering OSPF or IS-IS in the home...this seems like using a s= ledgehammer to kill an ant.

If the devices we're talking about have enough resources to run them, a= nd they have desirable properties that are useful in home networks, then wh= at's the problem with either of these?=A0Home gateways these days are c= apable of 1Gbps hardware forwarding and have pretty fast CPUs.

For example, if there were a robust open-source version= of IS-IS that didn't take up too much RAM and flash, you could define = TLVs to implement zeroconf and you could get to something that works relati= vely quickly.
--000e0cd3107addfacb04ae67c6c8-- From robert.cragie@gmail.com Mon Oct 3 10:21:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCD721F8C87; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:21:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.926 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xctrKU1n5w+Q; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F9521F8C89; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so4627204vcb.31 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:24:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=r+zpYmZwiEmmmjUR3mLNzqqrNUapL2RYtWyW/RfV2Xk=; b=IPDPH7uF3iDcizx9S1PfKuyOFrSvj21cwAoum0MSLDE2F88yPih1P/zNXWd9Fx91lM KNF1F/7MRIuYtl5Oi4oXWgiZ8HNnfd9bhsboxZVwxM08rNFq/D3ldsCCflgWA97q/qt0 Ei3bDd6SsWv7Vpr2qZnBN/ChJTmOOz53+8wZ8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.89.107 with SMTP id bn11mr200215vdb.146.1317662646110; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Sender: robert.cragie@gmail.com Received: by 10.220.179.10 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:24:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:24:06 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: dcCDAGeSBE8YFLyKck1EMnF_3kc Message-ID: From: Robert Cragie To: Acee Lindem Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307d033ef48a8004ae683d6d X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:36:08 -0700 Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Fred Baker , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:21:06 -0000 --20cf307d033ef48a8004ae683d6d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 Robert On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Acee Lindem wrote= : > Hey JP, > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 10:01 AM, JP Vasseur wrote: > > > > > On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > > >> > >> On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: > >> > >>> Since you asked, *I* think that a homenet has functional overlap (wha= t > I called "at least a smaller and slightly different subset" in my email) = in > terms of requirements to LLNs. At first blush, it looks like RPL has lots= of > functionality - perhaps more than we really need for homenet, and by your > own admission more than you need for LLN's - but will hold reservation on > what I think best fits the bill until we see Fred's analysis, hear from > others, etc. > >> > >> My two yen, which may be all it's worth... > >> > >> If I were a Linksys/D-Link/NetGear/* product manager asking about what > protocols to put in, I wouldn't be asking about what still exists in > Internet Drafts and is thought by the engineers designing it to be better > than sliced bread, but about what was inexpensive to implement, likely to= be > close to bug-free, and definitively accomplished the goal. I note that mo= st > routers for the IPv4 residential routing marketplace implement RIPv2; I k= now > of one that implements no routing protocol, one that implements RIPv2 and > RIPv1 (!), and one that implements RIPv2 and OSPF (don't ask which they a= re, > I don't remember). This is from a google search of residential routers a = few > months ago and covered perhaps 20 products from half as many vendors. So = my > first inclination is to say that for a residential IPv6 network, RIPng is > probably an image match for those vendors. > >> > >> I have a personal bias in the direction of OSPF or IS-IS; I think that > once the code is debugged, SPF-based protocols are more stable (no > count-to-infinity), given a reasonable set of defaults generate far more > stable networks, and definitively know when there is more than one router= on > a LAN, which can be important in subnet distribution. > > > > I spent enough years on OSPF and ISIS to agree with you that these > protocols are well proven, widely deployed with the number of > > recent improvements (MTR, fast convergence, =85) to name a few are > particularly appealing. But before choosing a routing protocol > > the first step consists of listing the requirements. In LLN, as you > rightly pointed out, "smart objects" have a set of constraints in terms > > of resources =85 far from where we are on traditional routers =85 Thus = I > would strongly encourage to list the set of requirements for this > > type of devices before making any sort of selection on the routing > protocol of choice, taking into account where we will be in a few years > > when the number of these objects will not be limited to a few dozens, t= he > LSDB *will* grow =85 > > I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with their > smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and wirele= ss > networks, they will need to do so through a border router supporting both > environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that meets all requirement= s > for every possible device in the home. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > > >> > >> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the field = in > multiple interoperable implementations. > >> > >> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest that > folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask > themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> homenet mailing list > >> homenet@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > > > _______________________________________________ > > homenet mailing list > > homenet@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > --=20 Robert Cragie Gridmerge Ltd. 89 Greenfield Crescent, Wakefield, WF4 4WA, UK +44 1924 910888 +1 415 513 0064 http://www.gridmerge.com --20cf307d033ef48a8004ae683d6d Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1

Robert

On Mon, Oct = 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hey JP,

On Oct 3, 2011, at 10:01 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:

>
> On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mark Townsley wrote:
>>
>>> Since you asked, *I* think that a homenet has functional overl= ap (what I called "at least a smaller and slightly different subset&qu= ot; in my email) in terms of requirements to LLNs. At first blush, it looks= like RPL has lots of functionality - perhaps more than we really need for = homenet, and by your own admission more than you need for LLN's - but w= ill hold reservation on what I think best fits the bill until we see Fred&#= 39;s analysis, hear from others, etc.
>>
>> My two yen, which may be all it's worth...
>>
>> If I were a Linksys/D-Link/NetGear/* product manager asking about = what protocols to put in, I wouldn't be asking about what still exists = in Internet Drafts and is thought by the engineers designing it to be bette= r than sliced bread, but about what was inexpensive to implement, likely to= be close to bug-free, and definitively accomplished the goal. I note that = most routers for the IPv4 residential routing marketplace implement RIPv2; = I know of one that implements no routing protocol, one that implements RIPv= 2 and RIPv1 (!), and one that implements RIPv2 and OSPF (don't ask whic= h they are, I don't remember). This is from a google search of resident= ial routers a few months ago and covered perhaps 20 products from half as m= any vendors. So my first inclination is to say that for a residential IPv6 = network, RIPng is probably an image match for those vendors.
>>
>> I have a personal bias in the direction of OSPF or IS-IS; I think = that once the code is debugged, SPF-based protocols are more stable (no cou= nt-to-infinity), given a reasonable set of defaults generate far more stabl= e networks, and definitively know when there is more than one router on a L= AN, which can be important in subnet distribution.
>
> I spent enough years on OSPF and ISIS to agree with you that these pro= tocols are well proven, widely deployed with the number of
> recent improvements (MTR, fast convergence, =85) to name a few are par= ticularly appealing. But before choosing a routing protocol
> the first step consists of listing the requirements. In LLN, as you ri= ghtly pointed out, "smart objects" have a set of constraints in t= erms
> of resources =85 far from where we are on traditional routers =85 Thus= I would strongly encourage to list the set of requirements for this
> type of devices before making any sort of selection on the routing pro= tocol of choice, taking into account where we will be in a few years
> when the number of these objects will not be limited to a few dozens, = the LSDB *will* grow =85

I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with the= ir smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and wirel= ess networks, they will need to do so through a border router supporting bo= th environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that meets all requir= ements for every possible device in the home.

Thanks,
Acee



>
>>
>> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in th= e field in multiple interoperable implementations.
>>
>> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd sugges= t that folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory= .
>> _______________________________________________
>> homenet mailing list
>> homenet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet



--
=

= Robert Cragie

Gridmerge Ltd.
89 Greenfield Crescent,
Wakefield, WF4 4WA, UK
+44 1924 910888
+1 415 513 0064
 http://www.gridmerge.com


--20cf307d033ef48a8004ae683d6d-- From jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Mon Oct 3 11:08:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A165521F8CDB; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:08:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.863 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.556, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c8a7wriR35Lu; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 987EC21F8CD0; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p93IB0SA004308; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:11:03 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.14]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:10:59 -0400 From: Jeff Tantsura Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:10:58 -0400 Thread-Topic: [homenet] Question for you Thread-Index: AcyB983JGlE+vn1VT2W9QAMzXWRwvw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3B8B1C13-D999-4B58-94CF-5A0C64C41EF0@tony.li> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:11:05 -0700 Cc: C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Qiong , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:08:03 -0000 +1 - we know LS protocols rather well to not to use them Today's in-home devices have more CPU horsepower/memory than an OSPF router 10 years ago, there's also no reason to reinvent the wheel, perhaps we should separate 2012 goals from long term ones. Having "dumb" end nodes + border router in-between in the beginning and e2e native communication as the end model worked rather well over the years. Cheers, Jeff=20 On 10/3/11 9:15 AM, "Tony Li" wrote: > >The problem with a RIP like protocol is that it will have RIP like >convergence properties. IMHO, that's no longer acceptable. > >Doing a subset of a LS protocol with a trivial default configuration >should not be unreasonable. > >Tony > > >On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Randy Turner wrote: > >>=20 >> I would hope that we would NOT be seriously considering OSPF or IS-IS >>in the home...this seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. How >>many routes are we talking about for a home network? I don't believe >>any enterprise routing protocol was designed for a "zeroconf" or >>"zeroadmin" type of environment. Our customers won't even know what an >>IP address is. >>=20 >> Seems like a "RIP-like" (around the same scope of complexity) would be >>enough for a homenet. I'm curious to see what comes out of the LLN >>discussion. >>=20 >> The "filter" for any of these decisions should probably always be a >>"zeroconf" or "zeroadmin" scenario -- if a proposed approach to a >>problem can't exist in a "zeroconf/admin" environment, then I would >>think it would not be the right choice. Also, as a "first cut" >>solution, we I think we should be focused on the 80% use-case, not the >>fringe. The participants of this working group, and their respective >>home networking setups, are probably not our "typical" customer. >>=20 >> Randy >>=20 >>=20 >> On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Qiong wrote: >>=20 >>> Hi, Acee, >>>=20 >>> Agree. I think the HOMENET requirements should be derived from major >>>devices in the home network scenario. Maybe currently we should firstly >>>focus on multiple router scenario for traditional fixed and wireless >>>network for multiple services (especially WiFi) , and then introduce >>>LLN network as well for smart objects in the same environment, together >>>with the homenet architecture and new model in the future. >>>=20 >>> Best wishes=20 >>>=20 >>> Qiong=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with >>>their smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed >>>and wireless networks, they will need to do so through a border router >>>supporting both environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that >>>meets all requirements for every possible device in the home. >>>=20 >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> > >>> >> >>> >> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the >>>field in multiple interoperable implementations. >>> >> >>> >> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest >>>that folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and >>>ask themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> homenet mailing list >>> >> homenet@ietf.org >>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > homenet mailing list >>> > homenet@ietf.org >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> homenet mailing list >>> homenet@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> homenet mailing list >>> homenet@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> rtgwg mailing list >> rtgwg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > >_______________________________________________ >rtgwg mailing list >rtgwg@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg From ulrich@herberg.name Mon Oct 3 11:19:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B349D21F8CF8; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:19:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MPQo6f+VZz-U; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A439B21F8CF7; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwf22 with SMTP id 22so4294283wwf.13 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:22:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=7NF6mEhyAWQdSYTjeb6T2ijt1G1bTbSxrQYK89uy3j4=; b=o6R9IyhFptxpO4ivemN9n/JnBYd1FB1dn+PijgvenHjbh1ouUYSdKZwqSwcfXYInrS gUrhtjQXsjDzjLa/xH4UiPXmYq3HTYz2Uiuw785TNGsrQM6E66/ZQeHxz0Ag8M1yuLcI FAj81UlEE8WuWt82PnHnP/lhEomCot6u00iMo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.30.154 with SMTP id u26mr265578wbc.73.1317666150824; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.7.68 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:22:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3B8B1C13-D999-4B58-94CF-5A0C64C41EF0@tony.li> References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <3B8B1C13-D999-4B58-94CF-5A0C64C41EF0@tony.li> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:22:30 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: Tony Li Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=002215974902da3d1004ae690e61 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:29:40 -0700 Cc: C Chauvenet , Randy Turner , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Qiong , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:19:30 -0000 --002215974902da3d1004ae690e61 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Tony, I agree. I would like to mention that we are specifying an extensible, flexible (using TLVs) LS protocol in the MANET WG: OLSRv2. I think that we are not far from submitting it to the IESG. OLSRv2 could well operate on home devices with limited resources, and does not have the issues of RIP. Regards Ulrich On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Tony Li wrote: > > The problem with a RIP like protocol is that it will have RIP like > convergence properties. IMHO, that's no longer acceptable. > > Doing a subset of a LS protocol with a trivial default configuration should > not be unreasonable. > > Tony > > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Randy Turner wrote: > > > > > I would hope that we would NOT be seriously considering OSPF or IS-IS in > the home...this seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. How many > routes are we talking about for a home network? I don't believe any > enterprise routing protocol was designed for a "zeroconf" or "zeroadmin" > type of environment. Our customers won't even know what an IP address is. > > > > Seems like a "RIP-like" (around the same scope of complexity) would be > enough for a homenet. I'm curious to see what comes out of the LLN > discussion. > > > > The "filter" for any of these decisions should probably always be a > "zeroconf" or "zeroadmin" scenario -- if a proposed approach to a problem > can't exist in a "zeroconf/admin" environment, then I would think it would > not be the right choice. Also, as a "first cut" solution, we I think we > should be focused on the 80% use-case, not the fringe. The participants of > this working group, and their respective home networking setups, are > probably not our "typical" customer. > > > > Randy > > > > > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Qiong wrote: > > > >> Hi, Acee, > >> > >> Agree. I think the HOMENET requirements should be derived from major > devices in the home network scenario. Maybe currently we should firstly > focus on multiple router scenario for traditional fixed and wireless network > for multiple services (especially WiFi) , and then introduce LLN network as > well for smart objects in the same environment, together with the homenet > architecture and new model in the future. > >> > >> Best wishes > >> > >> Qiong > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with their > smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and wireless > networks, they will need to do so through a border router supporting both > environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that meets all requirements > for every possible device in the home. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Acee > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the field > in multiple interoperable implementations. > >> >> > >> >> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest that > folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask > themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> homenet mailing list > >> >> homenet@ietf.org > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > homenet mailing list > >> > homenet@ietf.org > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> homenet mailing list > >> homenet@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> homenet mailing list > >> homenet@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rtgwg mailing list > > rtgwg@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > --002215974902da3d1004ae690e61 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tony,

I agree. I would like to mention that we are specifying an = extensible, flexible (using TLVs) LS protocol in the MANET WG: OLSRv2. I th= ink that we are not far from submitting it to the IESG. OLSRv2 could well o= perate on home devices with limited resources, and does not have the issues= of RIP.

Regards
Ulrich

On Mon, Oct 3, 201= 1 at 9:15 AM, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:


On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Randy Turner wrote:

>
> I would hope that we would NOT be seriously considering OSPF or IS-IS = in the home...this seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. =A0How m= any routes are we talking about for a home network? =A0I don't believe = any enterprise routing protocol was designed for a "zeroconf" or = "zeroadmin" type of environment. =A0Our customers won't even = know what an IP address is.
>
> Seems like a "RIP-like" (around the same scope of complexity= ) would be enough for a homenet. =A0I'm curious to see what comes out o= f the LLN discussion.
>
> The "filter" for any of these decisions should probably alwa= ys be a "zeroconf" or "zeroadmin" scenario -- if a prop= osed approach to a problem can't exist in a "zeroconf/admin" = environment, then I would think it would not be the right choice. =A0Also, = as a "first cut" solution, we I think we should be focused on the= 80% use-case, not the fringe. =A0The participants of this working group, a= nd their respective home networking setups, are probably not our "typi= cal" customer.
>
> Randy
>
>
> On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Qiong wrote:
>
>> Hi, Acee,
>>
>> Agree. I think the HOMENET requirements should be derived from maj= or devices in the home network scenario. Maybe currently we should firstly = focus on multiple router scenario for traditional fixed and wireless networ= k for multiple services (especially WiFi) , and then introduce LLN network = as well for smart objects in the same environment, together with the homene= t architecture and new model in the future.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Qiong
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with = their smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and wi= reless networks, they will need to do so through a border router supporting= both environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that meets all req= uirements for every possible device in the home.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't pro= ven in the field in multiple interoperable implementations.
>> >>
>> >> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'= ;d suggest that folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section= -4.1.2 and ask themselves why that level of interoperability isn't = mandatory.
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> homenet mailing list
>> >> homenet@ietf.org<= br> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > homenet mailing list
>> > homenet@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> homenet mailing list
>> homenet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> homenet mailing list
>> homenet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--002215974902da3d1004ae690e61-- From tony.li@tony.li Mon Oct 3 11:23:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7FE421F8C88 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:23:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.493 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DuAz2bfBAY5A for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0609021F8C13 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.71]) by qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id gAYY1h0021YDfWL51JSTA9; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:26:27 +0000 Received: from [10.155.34.172] ([128.107.239.233]) by omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id gJRw1h00W52qHCY3gJS0ff; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:26:25 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:25:55 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2004EB35-D6EA-48FC-B2B4-7E886F68D1E8@tony.li> References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <3B8B1C13-D999-4B58-94CF-5A0C64C41EF0@tony.li> To: Ulrich Herberg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:29:40 -0700 Cc: C Chauvenet , Randy Turner , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Qiong , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:23:27 -0000 What's the rationale for not subsetting OSPF or IS-IS? Tony On Oct 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > Hi Tony, >=20 > I agree. I would like to mention that we are specifying an extensible, = flexible (using TLVs) LS protocol in the MANET WG: OLSRv2. I think that = we are not far from submitting it to the IESG. OLSRv2 could well operate = on home devices with limited resources, and does not have the issues of = RIP. >=20 > Regards > Ulrich=20 >=20 > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Tony Li wrote: >=20 > The problem with a RIP like protocol is that it will have RIP like = convergence properties. IMHO, that's no longer acceptable. >=20 > Doing a subset of a LS protocol with a trivial default configuration = should not be unreasonable. >=20 > Tony >=20 >=20 > On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Randy Turner wrote: >=20 > > > > I would hope that we would NOT be seriously considering OSPF or = IS-IS in the home...this seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. = How many routes are we talking about for a home network? I don't = believe any enterprise routing protocol was designed for a "zeroconf" or = "zeroadmin" type of environment. Our customers won't even know what an = IP address is. > > > > Seems like a "RIP-like" (around the same scope of complexity) would = be enough for a homenet. I'm curious to see what comes out of the LLN = discussion. > > > > The "filter" for any of these decisions should probably always be a = "zeroconf" or "zeroadmin" scenario -- if a proposed approach to a = problem can't exist in a "zeroconf/admin" environment, then I would = think it would not be the right choice. Also, as a "first cut" = solution, we I think we should be focused on the 80% use-case, not the = fringe. The participants of this working group, and their respective = home networking setups, are probably not our "typical" customer. > > > > Randy > > > > > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Qiong wrote: > > > >> Hi, Acee, > >> > >> Agree. I think the HOMENET requirements should be derived from = major devices in the home network scenario. Maybe currently we should = firstly focus on multiple router scenario for traditional fixed and = wireless network for multiple services (especially WiFi) , and then = introduce LLN network as well for smart objects in the same environment, = together with the homenet architecture and new model in the future. > >> > >> Best wishes > >> > >> Qiong > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with = their smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and = wireless networks, they will need to do so through a border router = supporting both environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that = meets all requirements for every possible device in the home. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Acee > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the = field in multiple interoperable implementations. > >> >> > >> >> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest = that folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and = ask themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> homenet mailing list > >> >> homenet@ietf.org > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > homenet mailing list > >> > homenet@ietf.org > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> homenet mailing list > >> homenet@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> homenet mailing list > >> homenet@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rtgwg mailing list > > rtgwg@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 From gettysjim@gmail.com Mon Oct 3 11:25:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0327421F8B8B; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FjkxujNfHG6C; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF99D21F8C98; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so4702708vcb.31 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:28:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+ePcMY+M3WAkB++jeChui9fwWYxCcUZnOtIW4kX3ULU=; b=GOBnn2Sto4V+8MeyLwwheXs52u/1s2QuxumbwbDulx1oCsYp9p6BFNGkJBkk5+XH0G Dfhq1Y+7rjQV4RMSMXDb6Zo7xqCfBhPr9PRCJY/FpFW2gxssLsYM2+u9NYo9GJQRg4e7 0HWNygPm6f90CCaGPFPn+61sbv6imhtgQvjVU= Received: by 10.52.89.239 with SMTP id br15mr246497vdb.428.1317666489517; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.30.45.112] (c-24-63-191-17.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.63.191.17]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ja7sm14708026vdb.16.2011.10.03.11.28.07 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:28:08 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Jim Gettys Message-ID: <4E89FEB6.3040904@freedesktop.org> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:28:06 -0400 From: Jim Gettys Organization: Bell Labs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110906 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lorenzo Colitti References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:29:40 -0700 Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Qiong , Fred Baker , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:25:08 -0000 I think there is another set of routing issues that most have not thought about unless they have had experience with wireless networking; that is the possible need for diversity aware routing. See: http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/babel/wbmv4.pdf For an introduction to the topic, and some work in the area (e.g. babelz). In my house, for example, I have great trouble getting wires where all I need them, and I need multiple access points. I'd like to put one out in the pool shed, and I really can't get wires out there (without digging). This may or may not be orthogonal to the routing requirements to support multi-homing and multiple providers, but is something that many/most routing protocols have not dealt with in the past. - Jim From tony.li@tony.li Mon Oct 3 11:33:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8597221F8CCB for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:33:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.505 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.505 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zvrkNbPYu+pA for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0278521F8CB0 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.27]) by qmta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id gJan1h0070b6N64A2Jbza7; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:35:59 +0000 Received: from [10.155.34.172] ([128.107.239.233]) by omta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id gJbk1h00N52qHCY8PJbnF5; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:36:11 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: <4E89FEB6.3040904@freedesktop.org> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:35:36 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <61E0CF30-12F1-4218-90AD-102A635775E6@tony.li> References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <4E89FEB6.3040904@freedesktop.org> To: Jim Gettys X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:40:15 -0700 Cc: C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Qiong , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" , Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:33:02 -0000 LS protocols give every router a full picture of the topology, so the = diversity is apparent to all nodes. Tony On Oct 3, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Jim Gettys wrote: > I think there is another set of routing issues that most have not > thought about unless they have had experience with wireless = networking; > that is the possible need for diversity aware routing. >=20 > See: >=20 > http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/babel/wbmv4.pdf > >=20 > For an introduction to the topic, and some work in the area (e.g. = babelz). >=20 > In my house, for example, I have great trouble getting wires where all = I > need them, and I need multiple access points. I'd like to put one out > in the pool shed, and I really can't get wires out there (without = digging). >=20 > This may or may not be orthogonal to the routing requirements to = support > multi-homing and multiple providers, but is something that many/most > routing protocols have not dealt with in the past. > - Jim >=20 > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rtgwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg From ulrich@herberg.name Mon Oct 3 11:39:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B6321F8D5C; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:39:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YTJOX96C4KMl; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721AB21F8D5A; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyh21 with SMTP id 21so4012470wyh.31 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:42:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=V2l3enkK5NGNLPc8qIkwLl+mSlNRfDpB/iLAuk/waIs=; b=oU1d4AYf7+j2rf45E+3jjLJufcnFKxmzrp7xd5XaRIdSpBhAIB6qfxihRpDjTa35qR EWHtnm7LNzBfOJK8cThlxJAoog3Hzg/5N1vOa08O70F1BbMml6atbaNIQtVUS8YFFq8r IG9MzicMUiquYTZhDu9moC+J9KVIwAhrlj5pQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.157.77 with SMTP id a13mr297130wbx.73.1317667359068; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:42:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.7.68 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:42:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2004EB35-D6EA-48FC-B2B4-7E886F68D1E8@tony.li> References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <3B8B1C13-D999-4B58-94CF-5A0C64C41EF0@tony.li> <2004EB35-D6EA-48FC-B2B4-7E886F68D1E8@tony.li> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:42:38 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: Tony Li Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e65503a8de969e04ae6956fe X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:40:15 -0700 Cc: C Chauvenet , Randy Turner , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Qiong , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:39:41 -0000 --0016e65503a8de969e04ae6956fe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Tony, One reason for using OLSRv2 instead of OSPF is that it is optimized for wireless radio (fewer transmissions, optimized flooding, link bidirectionality check, compressed packet format, IPv6 support). Its TLV structure allows for extending the protocol easily (and for encapsulating other, arbitrary, data into control traffic messages). I assume that not all routers are required to be connected by cable in HOMENET, but some could be wireless (please correct me if I am wrong here...). I am not saying that OSPF is not (or less) suitable for these cases, but it may be worth considering the work done in MANET for HOMENET. Regards Ulrich On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Tony Li wrote: > > > What's the rationale for not subsetting OSPF or IS-IS? > > Tony > > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > > > Hi Tony, > > > > I agree. I would like to mention that we are specifying an extensible, > flexible (using TLVs) LS protocol in the MANET WG: OLSRv2. I think that we > are not far from submitting it to the IESG. OLSRv2 could well operate on > home devices with limited resources, and does not have the issues of RIP. > > > > Regards > > Ulrich > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Tony Li wrote: > > > > The problem with a RIP like protocol is that it will have RIP like > convergence properties. IMHO, that's no longer acceptable. > > > > Doing a subset of a LS protocol with a trivial default configuration > should not be unreasonable. > > > > Tony > > > > > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Randy Turner wrote: > > > > > > > > I would hope that we would NOT be seriously considering OSPF or IS-IS > in the home...this seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. How many > routes are we talking about for a home network? I don't believe any > enterprise routing protocol was designed for a "zeroconf" or "zeroadmin" > type of environment. Our customers won't even know what an IP address is. > > > > > > Seems like a "RIP-like" (around the same scope of complexity) would be > enough for a homenet. I'm curious to see what comes out of the LLN > discussion. > > > > > > The "filter" for any of these decisions should probably always be a > "zeroconf" or "zeroadmin" scenario -- if a proposed approach to a problem > can't exist in a "zeroconf/admin" environment, then I would think it would > not be the right choice. Also, as a "first cut" solution, we I think we > should be focused on the 80% use-case, not the fringe. The participants of > this working group, and their respective home networking setups, are > probably not our "typical" customer. > > > > > > Randy > > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Qiong wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, Acee, > > >> > > >> Agree. I think the HOMENET requirements should be derived from major > devices in the home network scenario. Maybe currently we should firstly > focus on multiple router scenario for traditional fixed and wireless network > for multiple services (especially WiFi) , and then introduce LLN network as > well for smart objects in the same environment, together with the homenet > architecture and new model in the future. > > >> > > >> Best wishes > > >> > > >> Qiong > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with > their smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and > wireless networks, they will need to do so through a border router > supporting both environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that meets > all requirements for every possible device in the home. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Acee > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the > field in multiple interoperable implementations. > > >> >> > > >> >> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest > that folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask > themselves why that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. > > >> >> _______________________________________________ > > >> >> homenet mailing list > > >> >> homenet@ietf.org > > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > >> > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > homenet mailing list > > >> > homenet@ietf.org > > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> homenet mailing list > > >> homenet@ietf.org > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> homenet mailing list > > >> homenet@ietf.org > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rtgwg mailing list > > > rtgwg@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > manet mailing list > > manet@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > > --0016e65503a8de969e04ae6956fe Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tony,

One reason for using OLSRv2 instead of OSPF is that it is o= ptimized for wireless radio (fewer transmissions, optimized flooding, link = bidirectionality check, compressed packet format, IPv6 support). Its TLV st= ructure allows for extending the protocol easily (and for encapsulating oth= er, arbitrary, data into control traffic messages). I assume that not all r= outers are required to be connected by cable in HOMENET, but some could be = wireless (please correct me if I am wrong here...).

I am not saying that OSPF is not (or less) suitable for these cases, bu= t it may be worth considering the work done in MANET for HOMENET.

R= egards
Ulrich

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1= 1:25 AM, Tony Li <t= ony.li@tony.li> wrote:


What's the rationale for not subsetting OSPF or IS-IS?

Tony


On Oct 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:

> Hi Tony,
>
> I agree. I would like to mention that we are specifying an extensible,= flexible (using TLVs) LS protocol in the MANET WG: OLSRv2. I think that we= are not far from submitting it to the IESG. OLSRv2 could well operate on h= ome devices with limited resources, and does not have the issues of RIP. >
> Regards
> Ulrich
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:
>
> The problem with a RIP like protocol is that it will have RIP like con= vergence properties. =A0IMHO, that's no longer acceptable.
>
> Doing a subset of a LS protocol with a trivial default configuration s= hould not be unreasonable.
>
> Tony
>
>
> On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Randy Turner wrote:
>
> >
> > I would hope that we would NOT be seriously considering OSPF or I= S-IS in the home...this seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. =A0= How many routes are we talking about for a home network? =A0I don't bel= ieve any enterprise routing protocol was designed for a "zeroconf"= ; or "zeroadmin" type of environment. =A0Our customers won't = even know what an IP address is.
> >
> > Seems like a "RIP-like" (around the same scope of compl= exity) would be enough for a homenet. =A0I'm curious to see what comes = out of the LLN discussion.
> >
> > The "filter" for any of these decisions should probably= always be a "zeroconf" or "zeroadmin" scenario -- if a= proposed approach to a problem can't exist in a "zeroconf/admin&q= uot; environment, then I would think it would not be the right choice. =A0A= lso, as a "first cut" solution, we I think we should be focused o= n the 80% use-case, not the fringe. =A0The participants of this working gro= up, and their respective home networking setups, are probably not our "= ;typical" customer.
> >
> > Randy
> >
> >
> > On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Qiong wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, Acee,
> >>
> >> Agree. I think the HOMENET requirements should be derived fro= m major devices in the home network scenario. Maybe currently we should fir= stly focus on multiple router scenario for traditional fixed and wireless n= etwork for multiple services (especially WiFi) , and then introduce LLN net= work as well for smart objects in the same environment, together with the h= omenet architecture and new model in the future.
> >>
> >> Best wishes
> >>
> >> Qiong
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks = with their smart objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed a= nd wireless networks, they will need to do so through a border router suppo= rting both environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that meets al= l requirements for every possible device in the home.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Acee
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> My first choice would NOT be something that isn'= t proven in the field in multiple interoperable implementations.
> >> >>
> >> >> As a person thinking about making a recommendation, = I'd suggest that folks read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#se= ction-4.1.2 and ask themselves why that level of interoperability isn&#= 39;t mandatory.
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> homenet mailing list
> >> >> homenet@ietf.org=
> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > homenet mailing list
> >> > homenet@ietf.org=
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> homenet mailing list
> >> homenet@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> homenet mailing list
> >> homenet@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtgwg mailing list
> > rtgwg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>


--0016e65503a8de969e04ae6956fe-- From robert@raszuk.net Mon Oct 3 11:46:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A1321F8D6C for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:46:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.382 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DlB4Y97dSH6x for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail37.opentransfer.com (mail37.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5B8AB21F8D64 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 26014 invoked by uid 399); 3 Oct 2011 18:49:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.57?) (178.42.87.122) by mail37.opentransfer.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2011 18:49:10 -0000 Message-ID: <4E8A03A5.5080601@raszuk.net> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:49:09 +0200 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Herberg References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <3B8B1C13-D999-4B58-94CF-5A0C64C41EF0@tony.li> <2004EB35-D6EA-48FC-B2B4-7E886F68D1E8@tony.li> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:47:37 -0700 Cc: C Chauvenet , Randy Turner , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Qiong , Acee Lindem , Tony Li , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:46:11 -0000 One thing I am perhaps missing in this thread ... Why a wireless access point at the pool has to also be a router ? Isn't it sufficient to extend one or more layer 2 to it ? Thx, R. > Hi Tony, > > One reason for using OLSRv2 instead of OSPF is that it is optimized for > wireless radio (fewer transmissions, optimized flooding, link > bidirectionality check, compressed packet format, IPv6 support). Its TLV > structure allows for extending the protocol easily (and for encapsulating > other, arbitrary, data into control traffic messages). I assume that not all > routers are required to be connected by cable in HOMENET, but some could be > wireless (please correct me if I am wrong here...). > > I am not saying that OSPF is not (or less) suitable for these cases, but it > may be worth considering the work done in MANET for HOMENET. > > Regards > Ulrich From gettysjim@gmail.com Mon Oct 3 12:07:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0BC421F8C45; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:07:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DCFW4RnGOOAL; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:07:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F4621F8C3A; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:07:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so4752328vcb.31 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:10:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=RT953tceKRy9VbH/a2FkElpZtaDnmhwb56qJ1McT2b8=; b=YRKM/puxiTDinfOTrEs+rg2Ntp6VgfQgdR12YDlG5+Lzjl+PmLvMdMDKMxzCVOwlsH IKVnzvot+yT61rzxh/Z1nifsmzTu1tdoxRZuao37egwZnFVQDzfwSpOaHh/iEAyEm1on TOLINl5oZxzPOoKZY4FBekWqfb3GV9Ag1pJls= Received: by 10.52.98.3 with SMTP id ee3mr298227vdb.351.1317669028516; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.30.45.112] (c-24-63-191-17.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.63.191.17]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c20sm14833554vdt.6.2011.10.03.12.10.26 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Jim Gettys Message-ID: <4E8A08A1.7000106@freedesktop.org> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:10:25 -0400 From: Jim Gettys Organization: Bell Labs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110906 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Li References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <4E89FEB6.3040904@freedesktop.org> <61E0CF30-12F1-4218-90AD-102A635775E6@tony.li> In-Reply-To: <61E0CF30-12F1-4218-90AD-102A635775E6@tony.li> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:10:22 -0700 Cc: C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Qiong , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" , Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:07:31 -0000 On 10/03/2011 02:35 PM, Tony Li wrote: > LS protocols give every router a full picture of the topology, so the diversity is apparent to all nodes. My point was just that wireless has a set of challenges that all may not be familiar with; knowing that may help point the discussion in fruitful ways. Routing isn't my area of expertise (though I have scars on my back from it in wireless...). - Jim > > Tony > > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Jim Gettys wrote: > >> I think there is another set of routing issues that most have not >> thought about unless they have had experience with wireless networking; >> that is the possible need for diversity aware routing. >> >> See: >> >> http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/babel/wbmv4.pdf >> >> >> For an introduction to the topic, and some work in the area (e.g. babelz). >> >> In my house, for example, I have great trouble getting wires where all I >> need them, and I need multiple access points. I'd like to put one out >> in the pool shed, and I really can't get wires out there (without digging). >> >> This may or may not be orthogonal to the routing requirements to support >> multi-homing and multiple providers, but is something that many/most >> routing protocols have not dealt with in the past. >> - Jim >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtgwg mailing list >> rtgwg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg From tony.li@tony.li Mon Oct 3 12:29:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7719621F8DEA for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:29:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.514 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id edhW-L7flnwk for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.96]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A267221F8E07 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta17.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.73]) by qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id gEQS1h0071afHeLA9KYiTp; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:32:42 +0000 Received: from [10.155.34.172] ([128.107.239.233]) by omta17.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id gKSL1h01i52qHCY8dKSPrX; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:26:47 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: <4E8A08A1.7000106@freedesktop.org> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:32:19 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <64AA82AA-80B9-43AD-8F2B-9DC2F866887A@tony.li> References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <4E89FEB6.3040904@freedesktop.org> <61E0CF30-12F1-4218-90AD-102A635775E6@tony.li> <4E8A08A1.7000106@freedesktop.org> To: Jim Gettys X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:40:45 -0700 Cc: C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Qiong , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" , Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:29:46 -0000 On Oct 3, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: > My point was just that wireless has a set of challenges that all may = not > be familiar with; knowing that may help point the discussion in = fruitful > ways. Routing isn't my area of expertise (though I have scars on my > back from it in wireless...). Understood. Yes, wireless has some challenges and I've spent some time in that area. = Certainly our standard protocols are not optimal for a purely wireless = environment. =20 However, for the generic, heterogenous networks that I would expect in = the home, I would expect that the generic protocols would be the better = overall approach. Tony From gettysjim@gmail.com Mon Oct 3 12:42:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7422321F8D82; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:42:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vhhx64pwJ+ro; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:42:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 600A521F8D28; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:42:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so4791739vcb.31 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:45:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8g47aNweAibSgBLteuUo/RRZdPkIPHoxqZxkRHAtFq8=; b=Bvft+HMygzjKlAPJMDKaVag0/u9Lp7C1CMEPRhMdBxH5rMFwrNIsVjuUmWT6PuJMGN 90UWvT+Porh1NDj8RMwPdLWPxtmorLG38FnFIMet8nGKMiMwEF8Pa6vyG2qp4rrYxSOU i5ex4qbYTsWLACDn2ZpMUPfdoSbD44NvaA2O4= Received: by 10.220.5.210 with SMTP id 18mr104058vcw.83.1317671125138; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.30.45.112] (c-24-63-191-17.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.63.191.17]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o20sm14930893vdj.3.2011.10.03.12.45.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Jim Gettys Message-ID: <4E8A10D2.1030105@freedesktop.org> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:45:22 -0400 From: Jim Gettys Organization: Bell Labs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110906 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Li References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <4E89FEB6.3040904@freedesktop.org> <61E0CF30-12F1-4218-90AD-102A635775E6@tony.li> <4E8A08A1.7000106@freedesktop.org> <64AA82AA-80B9-43AD-8F2B-9DC2F866887A@tony.li> In-Reply-To: <64AA82AA-80B9-43AD-8F2B-9DC2F866887A@tony.li> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:48:57 -0700 Cc: C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Qiong , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" , Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:42:39 -0000 On 10/03/2011 03:32 PM, Tony Li wrote: > On Oct 3, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: > >> My point was just that wireless has a set of challenges that all may not >> be familiar with; knowing that may help point the discussion in fruitful >> ways. Routing isn't my area of expertise (though I have scars on my >> back from it in wireless...). > > Understood. > > Yes, wireless has some challenges and I've spent some time in that area. Certainly our standard protocols are not optimal for a purely wireless environment. > > However, for the generic, heterogenous networks that I would expect in the home, I would expect that the generic protocols would be the better overall approach. Having been seriously scarred by presuming that wireless was similar to wired, I'm a believer in careful testing, rather than "expecting" that something should work. Without "running code", demonstrably working, I'll take nothing on faith in this area. Wireless != wired, is what I took away from that (painful) experience. - Jim > > Tony > From ulrich@herberg.name Mon Oct 3 13:00:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADB521F8E4A; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:00:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ACXaotQLm9ax; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:00:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B7E321F8E4B; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyh21 with SMTP id 21so4097261wyh.31 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:03:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V/0/Xc29qo64CV689BadzRkO1E3mZo7dnjARW6XUbjU=; b=qcyA5KMcBSC9xtnn1OGsZOpFcisxn1hx1WS/+uyvRB2Kw2kbB82iPV3HvPhWV5qaM3 ZfDRZTTzi05egVzl8kxLLGUC71k6n7IC1Xs8JxfCf8itjALvchUYeyovEiFeafzUGK3L VTu6Bhn0QMHZQ4DZBUrrr9uSjZU5LUJH0mA2E= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.7.25 with SMTP id b25mr357912wbb.103.1317672205030; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:03:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.7.68 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:03:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E8A10D2.1030105@freedesktop.org> References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <4E89FEB6.3040904@freedesktop.org> <61E0CF30-12F1-4218-90AD-102A635775E6@tony.li> <4E8A08A1.7000106@freedesktop.org> <64AA82AA-80B9-43AD-8F2B-9DC2F866887A@tony.li> <4E8A10D2.1030105@freedesktop.org> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:03:24 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: Jim Gettys Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:01:07 -0700 Cc: C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Qiong , Acee Lindem , Tony Li , "homenet@ietf.org" , Lorenzo Colitti , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:00:24 -0000 I agree with Jim. The reason why we developed OLSR and the its successor OLSRv2 was precisely that wireless environments are very different from wired. There are plenty of deployments of OLSR and several of OLSRv2, with up to several hundreds of wireless routers, so it is demonstrably working. Regards Ulrich On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: > > On 10/03/2011 03:32 PM, Tony Li wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: > > > >> My point was just that wireless has a set of challenges that all may n= ot > >> be familiar with; knowing that may help point the discussion in fruitf= ul > >> ways. =A0Routing isn't my area of expertise (though I have scars on my > >> back from it in wireless...). > > > > Understood. > > > > Yes, wireless has some challenges and I've spent some time in that area= . =A0Certainly our standard protocols are not optimal for a purely wireless= environment. > > > > However, for the generic, heterogenous networks that I would expect in = the home, I would expect that the generic protocols would be the better ove= rall approach. > > Having been seriously scarred by presuming that wireless was similar to > wired, I'm a believer in careful testing, rather than "expecting" that > something should work. =A0Without "running code", demonstrably working, > I'll take nothing on faith in this area. > > Wireless !=3D wired, is what I took away from that (painful) experience. > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0- Jim > > > > > Tony > > > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From ulrich@herberg.name Mon Oct 3 13:52:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E4621F8CAD for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:52:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LM8ei116hWdK for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D3821F8C40 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyh21 with SMTP id 21so4149344wyh.31 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:55:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/WbhO4xZF3ilEhq6cCK2blQ/11SC3RnLdJo1IIjr01c=; b=xXfHqtlKtVNsc/7V1qSaMA+W1HLUA3uORRM1BGDNutsVHDumgvQdKBd/3F0m7PivB2 GDcHHuMue/kkaCv+G/ZoZaJ0piUC07WaoyPDMxYM34r67Noa4Ec5IxFStiWIvRthqXwU e9RUUFitq8CZB3RDPsMsWG76SxSijcdo0uN7I= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.25.196 with SMTP id a4mr423327wbc.103.1317675315822; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.7.68 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:55:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <4E89FEB6.3040904@freedesktop.org> <61E0CF30-12F1-4218-90AD-102A635775E6@tony.li> <4E8A08A1.7000106@freedesktop.org> <64AA82AA-80B9-43AD-8F2B-9DC2F866887A@tony.li> <4E8A10D2.1030105@freedesktop.org> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:55:15 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: manet@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:52:14 -0000 To MANET WG: Please continue to reply to this thread on homenet@ietf.org only. (to avoid many mail bounces that we receive..) Thanks Ulrich On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > I agree with Jim. The reason why we developed OLSR and the its > successor OLSRv2 was precisely that wireless environments are very > different from wired. There are plenty of deployments of OLSR and > several of OLSRv2, with up to several hundreds of wireless routers, so > it is demonstrably working. > > Regards > Ulrich > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: >> >> On 10/03/2011 03:32 PM, Tony Li wrote: >> > On Oct 3, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: >> > >> >> My point was just that wireless has a set of challenges that all may = not >> >> be familiar with; knowing that may help point the discussion in fruit= ful >> >> ways. =A0Routing isn't my area of expertise (though I have scars on m= y >> >> back from it in wireless...). >> > >> > Understood. >> > >> > Yes, wireless has some challenges and I've spent some time in that are= a. =A0Certainly our standard protocols are not optimal for a purely wireles= s environment. >> > >> > However, for the generic, heterogenous networks that I would expect in= the home, I would expect that the generic protocols would be the better ov= erall approach. >> >> Having been seriously scarred by presuming that wireless was similar to >> wired, I'm a believer in careful testing, rather than "expecting" that >> something should work. =A0Without "running code", demonstrably working, >> I'll take nothing on faith in this area. >> >> Wireless !=3D wired, is what I took away from that (painful) experience. >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0- Jim >> >> > >> > Tony >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > From mcr@sandelman.ca Mon Oct 3 18:22:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC20521F8494; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:22:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hajmjTkZ9iYM; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26D921F848A; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (wlan204.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.204]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76A7F343AE; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:24:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (marajade.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by marajade.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40DC29817F; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:26:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Ulrich Herberg In-Reply-To: References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <3B8B1C13-D999-4B58-94CF-5A0C64C41EF0@tony.li> <2004EB35-D6EA-48FC-B2B4-7E886F68D1E8@tony.li> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.1; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:26:02 -0400 Message-ID: <12605.1317691562@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:22:18 -0700 Cc: C Chauvenet , Randy Turner , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Qiong , Acee Lindem , Tony Li , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 01:22:15 -0000 >>>>> "Ulrich" == Ulrich Herberg writes: Ulrich> arbitrary, data into control traffic messages). I assume Ulrich> that not all routers are required to be connected by cable Ulrich> in HOMENET, but some could be wireless (please correct me if Ulrich> I am wrong here...). You should assume that essentially all devices with more than one possible interface are possible routers. So my HTC G2 has four interfaces: wifi, 3G, Bluetooth PAN, and USB-ethernet. Note that just because my 3G is up and alive, and can be used by my phone, doesn't mean that the purpose of it participating in the routing is to provide *Internet* to the rest of the house. It might only be talking to my house network to get across it so that it can turn activate a light switch... -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ ] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video then sign the petition. From mcr@sandelman.ca Mon Oct 3 18:23:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2357721F8B94; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:23:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.812 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.142, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KYupk0YzMl9h; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF64721F8B74; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (wlan204.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.204]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 218F0343A4; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:26:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (marajade.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by marajade.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC849817F; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:27:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: robert@raszuk.net In-Reply-To: <4E8A03A5.5080601@raszuk.net> References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <3B8B1C13-D999-4B58-94CF-5A0C64C41EF0@tony.li> <2004EB35-D6EA-48FC-B2B4-7E886F68D1E8@tony.li> <4E8A03A5.5080601@raszuk.net> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.1; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:27:49 -0400 Message-ID: <12856.1317691669@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:22:18 -0700 Cc: C Chauvenet , Randy Turner , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Qiong , Tony Li , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 01:23:57 -0000 >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Raszuk writes: Robert> Why a wireless access point at the pool has to also be a Robert> router ? Isn't it sufficient to extend one or more layer 2 Robert> to it ? It's not much of an access point if it doesn't have a second interface, is it? If it's out at the pool, and it has no wired layer2, then it might well have a second radio (or a second ESSID), to relay. But, it might also be connected to the wired network in the pool house. -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ ] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video then sign the petition. From fred@cisco.com Tue Oct 4 06:48:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CF521F8672; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:48:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.984, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JdY5NC5ayDim; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:48:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-3.cisco.com (ams-iport-3.cisco.com [144.254.224.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F56521F8669; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:48:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=1090; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317736270; x=1318945870; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vQ83kY8GgRcQFzfIt7WTzUTlxZXTCB3Z0gqj6+UsCQg=; b=iv6/W+53L4vBLSpDFwi0+wju2zFGLU8MOGb6FG0BkFIxDObcxfMg1r0k 2ub12289HzPVe+812GQqAdo0aoyxsw+ZFh8lUtG0A+sAfMQ/31zs9Uiiv mS5R0zvzY0cdKTs/MhpioiPNv7/KX3g06/q2SN74+QUpXGr/kuAwrAB+/ w=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,485,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="290063" Received: from bgl-core-4.cisco.com ([72.163.197.19]) by ams-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2011 13:51:07 +0000 Received: from Freds-Computer.local (sin-vpn-client-16-76.cisco.com [10.68.16.76]) by bgl-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p94Dp51w004888; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:51:05 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:51:06 +0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:51:06 +0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Fred Baker In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 21:50:29 +0800 Message-Id: References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> To: Lorenzo Colitti X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:15:39 -0700 Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , Randy Turner , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Qiong , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:48:05 -0000 On Oct 4, 2011, at 12:50 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > For example, if there were a robust open-source version of IS-IS that = didn't take up too much RAM and flash, you could define TLVs to = implement zeroconf and you could get to something that works relatively = quickly. RFC 1453 specified a default OSPF configuration that my (ACC) Router = came up with by default. The only configuration necessary was to supply = IPv4 prefixes/addresses to the interfaces and to turn OSPF on. In the = context of a home, I suspect it would be pretty close. Fundamentals: = default values for most attributes are as specified in the OSPF RFC, the = metric is the duration of a bit in 10 ns units (which in LAN networks = becomes a hop count), and all interfaces are in area zero. Change things = to your heart's content, but the default configuration is one that = actually works for most purposes in a small network. I'll entertain = arguments that this doesn't address every possible configuration, but = for the networks we're discussing, I'll argue that its "close enough".= From radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil Tue Oct 4 08:04:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F56421F8C0D; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:04:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZXHA-zBdfEAM; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:04:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from edge-cols.mail.mil (edge-cols.mail.mil [131.64.100.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7D421F8BBD; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from UCOLHP3B.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.151) by ucolhp2w.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:07:07 -0500 Received: from UCOLHP4H.easf.csd.disa.mil ([169.254.6.67]) by UCOLHP3B.easf.csd.disa.mil ([131.64.100.151]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:07:05 -0500 From: "Roy, Radhika R USA CIV (US)" To: Fred Baker , Lorenzo Colitti Thread-Topic: [homenet] Question for you Thread-Index: AQHMgp1Epg4erVaUIEald7KjKxFOT5VsSKHw Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:07:05 +0000 Message-ID: <8486C8728176924BAF5BDB2F7D7EEDDF3AF3DD09@ucolhp4h.easf.csd.disa.mil> References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [131.64.77.11] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:10:39 -0700 Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , Randy Turner , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Acee Lindem , Qiong , "homenet@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:04:10 -0000 Agreed. Another idea is this: Do we also need any features like mobile ad hoc netwo= rking (e.g. OLSR) in homenet? RRR=20 -----Original Message----- From: homenet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Fred Baker Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:50 AM To: Lorenzo Colitti Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); C Chauvenet; Randy Turner; MANET IETF; Mark = Townsley; JP Vasseur; Acee Lindem; Qiong; homenet@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] Question for you On Oct 4, 2011, at 12:50 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > For example, if there were a robust open-source version of IS-IS that did= n't take up too much RAM and flash, you could define TLVs to implement zero= conf and you could get to something that works relatively quickly. RFC 1453 specified a default OSPF configuration that my (ACC) Router came u= p with by default. The only configuration necessary was to supply IPv4 pref= ixes/addresses to the interfaces and to turn OSPF on. In the context of a h= ome, I suspect it would be pretty close. Fundamentals: default values for m= ost attributes are as specified in the OSPF RFC, the metric is the duration= of a bit in 10 ns units (which in LAN networks becomes a hop count), and a= ll interfaces are in area zero. Change things to your heart's content, but = the default configuration is one that actually works for most purposes in a= small network. I'll entertain arguments that this doesn't address every po= ssible configuration, but for the networks we're discussing, I'll argue tha= t its "close enough". _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From chelliot@gmail.com Tue Oct 4 09:02:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C2221F8AF5; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:02:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YA7CZfMebOXR; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982C221F8AF3; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gyd12 with SMTP id 12so776015gyd.31 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:05:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date :to; bh=TdL/cCA51NYy0S/CMH8eR5GOlMHev5YnmPGSL7wJNHA=; b=jcaWCwjXwJlm0Z0lpBfl2ngq/VcU5YXhSQqBO7wRKEFIfiuS062BFsMA62u1hTFdBy SDZBaioPKdhhznnNa+UTbrZdfhst7L3t8rHsZw0H2ZACVavxTtiCvoOks1qoZLrEfYY8 UW/Q+qLy/Kue7iWcib/+Wc25sPM3gSW+Ir8QA= Received: by 10.236.181.196 with SMTP id l44mr7704235yhm.37.1317744329961; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.43.72.188] ([166.137.15.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u66sm20061696yhu.13.2011.10.04.09.05.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Chris Elliott References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <3B8B1C13-D999-4B58-94CF-5A0C64C41EF0@tony.li> <2004EB35-D6EA-48FC-B2B4-7E886F68D1E8@tony.li> <4E8A03A5.5080601@raszuk.net> <12856.1317691669@marajade.sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <12856.1317691669@marajade.sandelman.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8L1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3-134710160 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8L1) From: Chris Elliott Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:05:20 -0400 To: Michael Richardson X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:43:56 -0700 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" , MANET IETF , "robert@raszuk.net" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:02:25 -0000 --Apple-Mail-3-134710160 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:27 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: >=20 >>>>>> "Robert" =3D=3D Robert Raszuk writes: > Robert> Why a wireless access point at the pool has to also be a > Robert> router ? Isn't it sufficient to extend one or more layer 2 > Robert> to it ? >=20 > It's not much of an access point if it doesn't have a second interface, > is it? If it's out at the pool, and it has no wired layer2, then it > might well have a second radio (or a second ESSID), to relay. But, it > might also be connected to the wired network in the pool house. Bridging works fine between 802.11 and 802.1--or another 802.11 link. No rou= ting required. It works for the IETF meeting networks and pretty much how all Enterprise ge= ar is setup. Let's keep it simple and only route when we have to. Chris. -- Chris Elliott CCIE # 2013 R&S --Apple-Mail-3-134710160 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:27 PM, Micha= el Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca&g= t; wrote:

=
"Robert" =3D=3D Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> writes:
<= /blockquote>
  Robert> Why a wireless access point at th= e pool has to also be a
  Robert> router ? Isn't it sufficient to extend one or mor= e layer 2
 &nbs= p;Robert> to it ?
=
It's not much of an a= ccess point if it doesn't have a second interface,
is it?  If it's out at the pool, and it h= as no wired layer2, then it
might well have a second radio (or a second ESSID), to relay.  B= ut, it
might also be c= onnected to the wired network in the pool house.

Bridging works fine between 802.11 and 802.1--or another 8= 02.11 link. No routing required.

It works for the IETF meeting networks and pretty much how all Enterprise g= ear is setup.

Let's keep it simple and only route w= hen we have to.

Chris.

--<= /div>
Chris Elliott
CCIE # 2013 R&S

= --Apple-Mail-3-134710160-- From albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com Tue Oct 4 12:12:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE1B21F8F2A; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:12:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 59IE4Eyy81K2; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:12:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D9121F8F29; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:12:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.48.231]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id p94JFuqY013390 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p94JFuBk009215; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-MWHT-05.mw.nos.boeing.com (xch-mwht-05.mw.nos.boeing.com [134.57.119.160]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p94JFlL9008835 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-MWPFX-01.mw.nos.boeing.com (132.173.24.10) by XCH-MWHT-05.mw.nos.boeing.com (134.57.119.160) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.159.2; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:15:47 -0500 Received: from XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com ([134.57.118.180]) by XCH-MWPFX-01.mw.nos.boeing.com ([132.173.24.10]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:15:47 -0500 From: "Manfredi, Albert E" To: Michael Richardson , "robert@raszuk.net" Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:15:44 -0500 Thread-Topic: [homenet] [manet] Question for you Thread-Index: AcyCNxgRBuUVaon0Tb6zv65PHfvi/wAkiNgQ Message-ID: References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <3B8B1C13-D999-4B58-94CF-5A0C64C41EF0@tony.li> <2004EB35-D6EA-48FC-B2B4-7E886F68D1E8@tony.li> <4E8A03A5.5080601@raszuk.net> <12856.1317691669@marajade.sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <12856.1317691669@marajade.sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-6.800.1017-18426.000 x-tm-as-result: No--49.732200-0.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:15:10 -0700 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" , MANET IETF , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:12:58 -0000 > From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Michael Richardson > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 9:28 PM > To: robert@raszuk.net > Cc: C Chauvenet; Randy Turner; MANET IETF; Mark Townsley; JP Vasseur; > Ulrich Herberg; Acee Lindem; Qiong; homenet@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [homenet] [manet] Question for you >=20 >=20 > >>>>> "Robert" =3D=3D Robert Raszuk writes: > Robert> Why a wireless access point at the pool has to also be a > Robert> router ? Isn't it sufficient to extend one or more layer 2 > Robert> to it ? >=20 > It's not much of an access point if it doesn't have a second interface, > is it? If it's out at the pool, and it has no wired layer2, then it > might well have a second radio (or a second ESSID), to relay. But, it > might also be connected to the wired network in the pool house. I don't think that's the answer. It would be perfectly plausible to connect= more the 802.11 access point on the same IP subnet as the wired network, o= r even more than one access point, all tied together at layer 2. For whatever reason, the 802.11 access points you can actually buy on the m= arket seem to incorporate a router. Seems really silly, when most homes con= nect one of these to a cable or DSL modem, both of which are also routers, = but there you have it. You end up with a stack of private IP address subnet= s. Bert From chelliot@gmail.com Tue Oct 4 15:07:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77E7B21F8D76; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:07:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.379 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.597, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PlGsC55IH8Pg; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9E021F8D7F; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eye4 with SMTP id 4so1068002eye.31 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:10:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=DlKTZc4LxgLDUNfML/tAzte5fxeekVt14Lh5qHff3vA=; b=FGUDzDroCzqOQ6cMAQTFW0maSz+pzC3a4loojHZPsJ8QZ0v/L3mNjAIGopn4bqv/4v D206gyYsm3yKGSB2Rl0MEvoO1nTrPSeViXwC5Ltdynhp7jZCkJlUGpaqL4vL/tnxHoQT aI9EvdhPGdoT/qlkESvT74isLRll5yF8IUCA0= Received: by 10.213.2.74 with SMTP id 10mr1007495ebi.57.1317766211356; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:10:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: chelliot@gmail.com Received: by 10.213.29.207 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:09:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> <3B8B1C13-D999-4B58-94CF-5A0C64C41EF0@tony.li> <2004EB35-D6EA-48FC-B2B4-7E886F68D1E8@tony.li> <4E8A03A5.5080601@raszuk.net> <12856.1317691669@marajade.sandelman.ca> From: Chris Elliott Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 06:09:50 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6n6KW6p5C_OQCV4i-TpVgYcZb4A Message-ID: To: "Manfredi, Albert E" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174478f2ecc75904ae805a15 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:56:45 -0700 Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" , MANET IETF , Michael Richardson , "robert@raszuk.net" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: chelliot@pobox.com List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:07:07 -0000 --0015174478f2ecc75904ae805a15 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Manfredi, Albert E < albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote: > > From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of Michael Richardson > > It's not much of an access point if it doesn't have a second interface, > > is it? If it's out at the pool, and it has no wired layer2, then it > > might well have a second radio (or a second ESSID), to relay. But, it > > might also be connected to the wired network in the pool house. > > I don't think that's the answer. It would be perfectly plausible to connect > more the 802.11 access point on the same IP subnet as the wired network, or > even more than one access point, all tied together at layer 2. > > For whatever reason, the 802.11 access points you can actually buy on the > market seem to incorporate a router. Seems really silly, when most homes > connect one of these to a cable or DSL modem, both of which are also > routers, but there you have it. You end up with a stack of private IP > address subnets. > Often you can buy an access point or a wireless router. Many wireless routers have several switched Ethernet ports and a single "WAN" Ethernet port. Just don't use the "WAN" port and you're bridged. And some wireless routers (the Apple Airport series, for example) allow you to choose the mode they run in. They will bridge just fine, if you configure them that way. Of course, for a home network, routing and bridging and trunks and multiple SSIDs etc. all need to be configured automatically to a sane state. Two switches or a router and a switch can automatically trunk if they use a L2 discovery protocol, as can and AP. That same AP can then expose the VLANs on that trunk as separate SSIDs. All of this does not seem to be covered by the existing drafts. Are we assuming someone else will do this work or are we just interested in IPv6 and up? Chris. > Bert > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > -- Chris Elliott chelliot@pobox.com CCIE # 2013 R&S --0015174478f2ecc75904ae805a15 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com<= /a>> wrote:
> From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org= [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.o= rg] On Behalf
> Of Michael Richardson
> It's not much of an access point if it doesn't have a second i= nterface,
> is it? =A0If it's out at the pool, and it has no wired layer2, the= n it
> might well have a second radio (or a second ESSID), to relay. =A0But, = it
> might also be connected to the wired network in the pool house.

I don't think that's the answer. It would be perfectly plausi= ble to connect more the 802.11 access point on the same IP subnet as the wi= red network, or even more than one access point, all tied together at layer= 2.

For whatever reason, the 802.11 access points you can actually buy on the m= arket seem to incorporate a router. Seems really silly, when most homes con= nect one of these to a cable or DSL modem, both of which are also routers, = but there you have it. You end up with a stack of private IP address subnet= s.

Often you can buy an access point or a wir= eless router. Many wireless routers have several switched Ethernet ports an= d a single "WAN" Ethernet port. Just don't use the "WAN&= quot; port and you're bridged. And some wireless routers (the Apple Air= port series, for example) allow you to choose the mode they run in. They wi= ll bridge just fine, if you configure them that way.

Of course, for a home network, routing and bridging and= trunks and multiple SSIDs etc. all need to be configured automatically to = a sane state. Two switches or a router and a switch can automatically trunk= if they use a L2 discovery protocol, as can and AP. That same AP can then = expose the VLANs on that trunk as separate SSIDs.

All of this does not seem to be covered by the existing= drafts. Are we assuming someone else will do this work or are we just inte= rested in IPv6 and up?

Chris.
=A0
Bert

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet



--
= Chris Elliott
chelliot@pobox.com
CCIE # 2013 R&S --0015174478f2ecc75904ae805a15-- From pthubert@cisco.com Tue Oct 4 23:43:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8D421F8B35; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:43:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.311, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wcLir3Ess4sh; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:43:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EBFF21F8B33; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:43:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; l=2312; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317797181; x=1319006781; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=rp5JBIbZkMpgn4dIN/4TB50PLlgaGmztjF4IgLtSKlI=; b=cp4KX/mRW7D1WZgf3Thm41vA/m0dlpuwGOr9T2qHtetvxzTCOfuE07Tw /+GvrTZoLc5+CDrlYJ79ZFEmn5xdnFi7ud9xrw8vQqFuSvNwyiTfHEaE1 kaDNastDfjVk7NmUx0CHdB0VKL5qcHU0WVtfPHNRXijOUA6n9jyur4eaw A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFANz8i06Q/khM/2dsb2JhbABChG2iK3eBBYFTAQEBAQIBEgEQDQRFBQsCAQgODAIGBhgCAgIBAVUBAQQBGhMHh1uZPgGMQZFHgS2EYzJhBJkXjBY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,490,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="118297957" Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Oct 2011 06:46:19 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p956kJoU019614; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 06:46:19 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-108.cisco.com ([144.254.74.83]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:46:19 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:46:17 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [homenet] [manet] Question for you Thread-Index: AcyCr3QOWtZIKFJKQVy/sD0bkANUyAAdxFIw References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com><1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net><47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com><48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com><3B8B1C13-D999-4B58-94CF-5A0C64C41EF0@tony.li><2004EB35-D6EA-48FC-B2B4-7E886F68D1E8@tony.li><4E8A03A5.5080601@raszuk.net><12856.1317691669@marajade.sandelman.ca> From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Chris Elliott" , "Michael Richardson" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Oct 2011 06:46:19.0063 (UTC) FILETIME=[7CAF4C70:01CC832A] Cc: homenet@ietf.org, MANET IETF , robert@raszuk.net, rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 06:43:14 -0000 Q2hyaXM7DQoNCj4gQnJpZGdpbmcgd29ya3MgZmluZSBiZXR3ZWVuIDgwMi4xMSBhbmQgODAyLjEt LW9yIGFub3RoZXIgODAyLjExIGxpbmsuIE5vIHJvdXRpbmcgcmVxdWlyZWQuDQo+IEl0IHdvcmtz IGZvciB0aGUgSUVURiBtZWV0aW5nIG5ldHdvcmtzIGFuZCBwcmV0dHkgbXVjaCBob3cgYWxsIEVu dGVycHJpc2UgZ2VhciBpcyBzZXR1cC4NCj4gTGV0J3Mga2VlcCBpdCBzaW1wbGUgYW5kIG9ubHkg cm91dGUgd2hlbiB3ZSBoYXZlIHRvLg0KDQpDZXJ0YWlubHksIGJ1dCB0aGF0J3Mgbm90IHRoZSBw b2ludC4gQXMgbG9uZyBhcyB5b3UgaGF2ZSBhIG5hdGl2ZWx5IGxvb3BsZXNzIHRvcG9sb2d5LCBm b3Igd2hpY2ggYSBXaUZpIEVTUyBpcyBhIHNpbXBsZSBleGFtcGxlLCB5b3UgY2FuIGJyaWRnZSBh bmQgcHJveHkvcmVsYXkvcmVwZWF0IGFsbCB5b3Ugd2FudC4gWW91J2xsIG5vdGUgdGhhdCB0aGUg RVNTIG1vZGVsIGlzIHJlcHJvZHVjZWQgYXQgTDMgd2hlbiB0aGUgNkxvV1BBTiBiYWNrYm9uZSBy b3V0ZXIgcHJveGllcyBORCBmcm9tIGEgYmFja2JvbmUgbGluayBvbnRvIGEgTExOLg0KDQpUaGUg cHJvYmxlbSBpcyB0aGF0IHNvb24gZW5vdWdoIHlvdSdsbCBuZWVkIG1vcmUgdGhhbiAxIHJlbGF5 IEFQIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIHBvb2wgYW5kIHRoZSBsb3VuZ2UuIFlvdSdsbCBuZWVkIGl0IHRvIGlt cHJvdmUgdGhyb3VnaHB1dCB0aHJvdWdoIHNwYXRpYWwgZGl2ZXJzaXR5LiBZb3UnbGwgbmVlZCBp dCBzbyBzYXZlIHBvd2VyIGFuZCByZWR1Y2UgaW50ZXJmZXJlbmNlcy4gWW91J2xsIG5lZWQgaXQg dG8gaW1wcm92ZSB5b3VyIGRlbGl2ZXJ5IHJhdGlvcy4NCg0KQXMgc29vbiBhcyB5b3UgaGF2ZSBt b3JlIHRoYW4gb25lIHJlbGF5IGFuZCB0aGUgY29ubmVjdGl2aXR5IGlzIHdoYXRldmVyIG1lc2hp bmcgb2YgbGlua3MsIGxvb3BzIGNhbiBmb3JtIGFuZCB5b3UgbmVlZCByb3V0aW5nLiBUaGlzIGlz IHdoeSB3ZSBjYW1lIHVwIHdpdGggc3Bhbm5pbmcgdHJlZSBhbmQgaXRzIGV2b2x1dGlvbnMgaW4g TDIgc3dpdGNoIG5ldHdvcmtzLiBBbmQgYWxsIHNvcnRzIG9mIEwyIG1lc2ggdGVjaG5vbG9naWVz IGluIHdpcmVsZXNzLCBzdGlsbCBMMiBzcGVjaWZpYyBhbmQgcHJvcHJpZXRhcnkgd2hlcmV2ZXIg eW91IGxvb2sgYXQuIFRoZW4gYWdhaW4sIHRoZSBJRVRGIGFkZHJlc3NlZCB0aGUgcHJvYmxlbSBh dCBMMywgYW5kIGNhbWUgdXAgd2l0aCB0aGUgUlBMIHByb3RvY29sIHRoYXQgZHJhd3Mgb25lIChv ciBtb3JlKSBsb29wbGVzcyB0b3BvbG9neShpZXMpIHVwb24gYW4gYXJiaXRyYXJ5IG1lc2ggdG8g cmVhY2ggdGhlIGdhdGV3YXlzLg0KDQpXZSBjYW4gZ28gKGFnYWluKSB0aHJvdWdoIGxlbmd0aHkg ZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMgYnV0IGluIHNob3J0IEkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCBvdGhlciB2b2ljZXMgKFJ1c3Mp IHRoYXQgaW5kaWNhdGUgdGhhdCB3ZSBuZWVkIGEgTDMgcm91dGluZyBzb2x1dGlvbi4gSSBhbHNv IGZ1bGx5IGFncmVlIHdpdGggdGhlIHZvaWNlcyAoUm9iZXJ0KSB0aGF0IGluZGljYXRlZCB0aGF0 IHRoZSBiYWNrYm9uZSBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24gbmV0d29yayBhbmQgdGhlIG1lc2hlZCBmcmluZ2Ug YXQgdGhlIGVkZ2UgYXJlIGRpZmZlcmVudCBiZXN0cyBhbmQgbWlnaHQgbmVlZCBkaWZmZXJlbnQg dHJlYXRtZW50cy4NCg0KQ2hlZXJzLA0KDQpQYXNjYWwNCg== From jpv@cisco.com Tue Oct 4 23:28:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F50921F8A57; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:28:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.739 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.860, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lpOtfk2ClUeu; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E18021F899F; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:27:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=2050; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317796266; x=1319005866; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=LM/9IamnG9nsWgB8SnAJAEViCE23IvbXtJ/QHiBZhhs=; b=WocKTU+YSyfslArBhmyR5+mWEyV/CE/06rDhHGDg8JQW5rgNd+kUBWHg Q48hkRcwDUT+HDkq8pCmfee/LCDFIZ19scldEOE/RLqc5YKGEFuPK6Lzi otuWeADMl4p+DsNrYUBmAmYMj45nZPyGd9EBuMzuCOhVRLrOsdULSTUEz s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAKH4i05Io8UQ/2dsb2JhbABCqA+BBYFTAQEBAQIBEgF2CxguVwYBNIdbmR0BngiGQmEEk2eFJwmMFg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,490,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="57117333" Received: from bgl-core-1.cisco.com ([72.163.197.16]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Oct 2011 06:31:00 +0000 Received: from xbh-hkg-412.apac.cisco.com (xbh-hkg-412.cisco.com [64.104.123.69]) by bgl-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p956UxEU028001; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 06:31:00 GMT Received: from xfe-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com ([64.104.123.70]) by xbh-hkg-412.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:30:59 +0800 Received: from [10.60.114.231] ([10.60.114.231]) by xfe-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:30:59 +0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) From: JP Vasseur In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:30:54 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com> <48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com> To: Lorenzo Colitti , Randy Turner , Qiong , "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , Acee Lindem , homenet@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org, Fred Baker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Oct 2011 06:30:59.0257 (UTC) FILETIME=[58700A90:01CC8328] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 06:57:10 -0700 Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you // Do we need three routing protocol ? X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 06:28:01 -0000 Sharing some thoughts =85 as already pointed on this list, we will more = likely need two routing protocols, one of constraint objects (e.g. sensors, actuators, ..), one for the = other devices, this is perfectly fine (and we know that some devices will not need routing at all, fine too). With = regards to Smart objects, since the IETF has already specified a routing protocol (RPL in the ROLL WG), do = we now want to "Tweak"/"change" /Add yet a third one (a simplified LS or routing protocol such as OLSR) = ? Since it was mentioned that we=20 should select a well established and stabilized routing protocol, it is = worth pointing out that although RPL=20 is fairly new, in the world of smart objects, this is the protocol that = will rapidly get the largest adoption and experience in the field, see the number of alliances that adopted it = (Zigbee/IP, Wave2M, =85)=20 On Oct 4, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Fred Baker wrote: >=20 > On Oct 4, 2011, at 12:50 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >=20 >> For example, if there were a robust open-source version of IS-IS that = didn't take up too much RAM and flash, you could define TLVs to = implement zeroconf and you could get to something that works relatively = quickly. >=20 > RFC 1453 specified a default OSPF configuration that my (ACC) Router = came up with by default. The only configuration necessary was to supply = IPv4 prefixes/addresses to the interfaces and to turn OSPF on. In the = context of a home, I suspect it would be pretty close. Fundamentals: = default values for most attributes are as specified in the OSPF RFC, the = metric is the duration of a bit in 10 ns units (which in LAN networks = becomes a hop count), and all interfaces are in area zero. Change things = to your heart's content, but the default configuration is one that = actually works for most purposes in a small network. I'll entertain = arguments that this doesn't address every possible configuration, but = for the networks we're discussing, I'll argue that its "close enough". From pthubert@cisco.com Wed Oct 5 00:14:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4622421F8B3F; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 00:14:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.293 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.306, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jedz5fe-yeli; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 00:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A383021F8B0F; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 00:14:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; l=2463; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317799046; x=1319008646; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=yZRnH6gd8WCvrB92aaKukWZaXpcxFBmS1BMpV1iB2bA=; b=TmFuWaXu6ATFi7IPq3JrKCZpvrdgyWjxUTtmNOd/oFm3ZO1CYvjP5lUw AI0PBBMuJ22WhGsI5DVx7L0cp807RMLFvwOW4FajDDzdpMAnz6r/RODZR sbgbW56zD585ELAActpeoEsvLQNg8TTvhb0oUemGhO7k93G4S6uOcKR/z A=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,490,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="118301009" Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Oct 2011 07:17:19 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p957HJIi026029; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 07:17:19 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-108.cisco.com ([144.254.74.83]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:17:19 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:17:18 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [homenet] [manet] Question for you Thread-Index: AcyCE6NqLjYtBFYkSiamqT4FTMaEnwBGn70Q References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com><1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net><47090411-FEBF-4EE2-804D-25773DE879B8@cisco.com><48464731-804A-47F4-BB5C-697A5E5F5797@cisco.com><4E89FEB6.3040904@freedesktop.org><61E0CF30-12F1-4218-90AD-102A635775E6@tony.li><4E8A08A1.7000106@freedesktop.org><64AA82AA-80B9-43AD-8F2B-9DC2F866887A@tony.li><4E8A10D2.1030105@freedesktop.org> From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Ulrich Herberg" , "Jim Gettys" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Oct 2011 07:17:19.0505 (UTC) FILETIME=[D1983810:01CC832E] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 06:57:10 -0700 Cc: C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , JP Vasseur , Tony Li , Acee Lindem , Qiong , homenet@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org, Lorenzo Colitti Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 07:14:22 -0000 Interestingly,=20 Those deployments are not limited to intra-home but include = between-homes, as I indicated earlier, for content and access sharing. Is that scenario in scope for this group? Pascal -----Original Message----- From: homenet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Ulrich Herberg Sent: lundi 3 octobre 2011 22:03 To: Jim Gettys Cc: C Chauvenet; MANET IETF; Mark Townsley; JP Vasseur; Qiong; Acee = Lindem; Tony Li; homenet@ietf.org; Lorenzo Colitti; rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [homenet] [manet] Question for you I agree with Jim. The reason why we developed OLSR and the its successor = OLSRv2 was precisely that wireless environments are very different from = wired. There are plenty of deployments of OLSR and several of OLSRv2, = with up to several hundreds of wireless routers, so it is demonstrably = working. Regards Ulrich On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: > > On 10/03/2011 03:32 PM, Tony Li wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: > > > >> My point was just that wireless has a set of challenges that all=20 > >> may not be familiar with; knowing that may help point the=20 > >> discussion in fruitful ways. =A0Routing isn't my area of expertise=20 > >> (though I have scars on my back from it in wireless...). > > > > Understood. > > > > Yes, wireless has some challenges and I've spent some time in that = area. =A0Certainly our standard protocols are not optimal for a purely = wireless environment. > > > > However, for the generic, heterogenous networks that I would expect = in the home, I would expect that the generic protocols would be the = better overall approach. > > Having been seriously scarred by presuming that wireless was similar=20 > to wired, I'm a believer in careful testing, rather than "expecting"=20 > that something should work. =A0Without "running code", demonstrably=20 > working, I'll take nothing on faith in this area. > > Wireless !=3D wired, is what I took away from that (painful) = experience. > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0- Jim > > > > > Tony > > > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From touch@isi.edu Wed Oct 5 08:22:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6BD21F8A6C; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:22:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.827 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EKQp4kiIQRCW; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:22:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB0521F8A58; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.94] (pool-71-105-93-161.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.105.93.161]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p95FOVRb013892 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Joe Touch In-Reply-To: <1C39033D-FBB9-4CAF-8C8C-E21AB4A1E9CE@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:24:31 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <5D15F60D-1922-49CD-9B3C-469FC23B663B@isi.edu> References: <1C39033D-FBB9-4CAF-8C8C-E21AB4A1E9CE@cisco.com> To: Fred Baker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , Acee Lindem , homenet@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 15:22:10 -0000 -1 The charter already allows for interface to external groups: --- The working group will also liason with external standards bodies where it is expected that there are normative dependencies between the specifications of the two bodies. --- I.e., this can be handled via liaisons (better, IMO). Joe On Oct 1, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > >> To add one more point to Fred's note: I think it is important to get a >> commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or all >> of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing. > > That would be very interesting. > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From vkaul@research.telcordia.com Wed Oct 5 17:51:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65E021F8CCB for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:51:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_TOOL=2.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id geCpXivqk31U for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flower.research.telcordia.com (flower.research.telcordia.com [128.96.41.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB5F621F8CCA for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:51:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vkaul7-t61.research.telcordia.com (vpntnlA77.research.telcordia.com [128.96.58.77]) by flower.research.telcordia.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p960sUep025939; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 20:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 20:54:25 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Vikram KAUL To: manet@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <3D05610F3AC2E047AACAA68F63DF908D345B1AA01A@EXMBX13.exchhosting.com> <3D05610F3AC2E047AACAA68F63DF908D345B93FA0D@EXMBX13.exchhosting.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (WNT 1266 2009-07-14) X-X-Sender: vkaul@mailee.research.telcordia.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Cc: sratliff@cisco.com Subject: Re: [manet] DLEP and broadcast/multicast X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 00:51:24 -0000 Stan, others Here are my thoughts on the DLEP broadcast/multicast matter. I will first discuss the addressing/identification and then the potential usages of 'existing' DLEP Protocol messages for multicast/broadcast MAC Address Sub-TLV ------------------- The MAC Address Sub-TLV could be used as the identifier for multicast/broadcast sessions that traverse the modems. So the language in the draft could be modified to expand the references from the MAC Address sub-TLV to be one of the following 1) The MAC address of the far-end (neighbor) router 2) An all-broadcast address 0xffffffffffff (6 bytes all 0xFF) 3) An IPv4 multicast address, the most significant two bytes being 0x0100 and the next 4 octets being the IPv4 multicast address octets example, 01:00:5E:00:00:01 for 224.0.0.1 A point to be noted here is that some implementations of host/router stacks don't use the MAC address (3) above to designate multicast packets. I don't know if the DLEP standard can mandate it or not. Another thing is that I don't know what happens for IPv6 in so far as how that translation from IPv6 to the MAC address would occur Once the MAC Address Sub-TLV is available to handle such (non peer MAC address values), it is then necessary to identify the DLEP messages that would be exercised using the newer values and the appropriate use cases for them Neighbor Up/Down ----------------- As Stan pointed out, the Neighbor Up and Neighbor Down Messages could be initiated by either the router or the modem. The traditional flow for Neighbor Up is that the modem sends it to the router to declare the presence of a peer. For multicast, the router could send the Neighbor Up message to the modem to indicate the initiation (Tx or Rx) for a multicast group. Again, the Neighbor Down message would be sent by the router to the modem to indicate the termination of the group. The IPv4 (or IPv6) Sub-TLV would be populated, even though they are OPTIONAL, with the IPv4 or IPv6 multicast address. The router could specify the MDR, CDR, Latency requirements for the session it desires from the modem Link Characteristics Request (and ACK) --------------------------------------- If the router desires different set of characteristics for a multicast group, it would use the Link Characteristics request. The MAC Address sub-TLV would carry the multicast version of the sub-TLV As the draft points out, the router could "query" the modem to tell it the existing session characteristics (MDR, CDR, latency, etc) Next steps ========== If the above discussion makes sense, then the following things can be done to update the draft: - Expand the description of the MAC Address sub-TLV - Where required, caveat all occurances of MAC Address sub-TLV to specify what type of MAC-Address sub-TLV would be used. For example, a Neighbor Address Update message would only use the 'traditional' MAC Address sub-TLV - In the initial sections, have use-cases that illustrate the use of DLEP for multicast/broadcast sessions regards.. Vikram On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, Stan Ratliff wrote: > Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:19:32 -0400 > From: Stan Ratliff > To: A. Riley Eller > Cc: "manet@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [manet] DLEP and broadcast/multicast > > My apologies for the quick comments on this to date. > > In response to Vikram's initial email, I look at a multicast MAC as another > "destination" in the network. A destination that needs to be characterized > from a metrics standpoint, so MCAST destinations are essentially a DLEP > "neighbor". Cognizance of the neighbor can come from the radio, provided the > radio is doing something like PIM "snooping", or it can come from the router. > Because of that, we were going to insert language into the DLEP spec that > Neighbor Up/Neighbor Down orders can actually come from either of the session > peers (either the router or the modem device). If/when the modem receives a > Neighbor Up from the router, it would be incumbent on the modem to provide > metrics for that "destination". > > Regards, > Stan > > > On Sep 15, 2011, at 5:08 PM, A. Riley Eller wrote: > >> Just to be clear, the request I filed below is only to measure the latency >> for these packets. The goal is to provide an approximation for some EFT >> variables. The value returned does not even need to come from multicast >> packets. For instance, in Wi-Fi, measuring the >> receipt-through-first-transmission duration of unicast packets would be an >> equivalent indicator. >> >> The idea here is to offer the router distinct latency views of access to >> the medium and each peer. For each peer, the total link latency will be >> (latency of access to the medium scaled by expected latency of >> retransmission to that peer). The first term of that clause was my intended >> goal, and might be well approximated by an exponential moving weighted >> average of forwarding time of multicast/broadcast packets. >> >> Hopefully some of those concepts will help to shape the motivation >> discussion. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Joe Macker >> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:59 AM >> To: Stan Ratliff >> Cc: manet@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [manet] DLEP and broadcast/multicast >> >> I realize there are some specific sub areas being discussed here but I also >> feel lower layer wireless designs will have more general performance and >> flow control issues related to multicast/broadcast interaction. >> >> I think we could author some core framework in this area that could be >> useful. A requirements/motivation discussion might be a good first step. >> >> >>> Vikram, >>> >>> Yes, there is interest amongst the DLEP co-authors to include >>> broadcast/multicast. Do you have any specific ideas? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Stan >>> >>> On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:45 PM, Vikram KAUL wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Reviving this old thread.... >>>> >>>> Is there any interest in the details of the messages below. I believe >>>> that the specifications would be more complete if we include some version >>>> of broadcast/multicast. >>>> >>>> Perhaps the dlep_tools software could also be modified to handle the >>>> upgraded specifications as a proof of concept >>>> >>>> Vikram >>>> >>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, A. Riley Eller wrote: >>>> >>>>> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:01:47 -0700 >>>>> From: A. Riley Eller >>>>> To: Vikram KAUL , >>>>> "manet@ietf.org" >>>>> Subject: RE: [manet] DLEP and broadcast/multicast >>>>> Perhaps the DLEP specification would benefit from accepting a >>>>> pseudo-link identifier for multicast messages? >>>>> >>>>> My team's research shows that EFT implementations achieve higher overall >>>>> accuracy by measuring multicast messages as a universal estimator for >>>>> queuing-plus-congestion. Giving DLEP the ability to describe that value, >>>>> and also gaining the ability to control the radio's performance for >>>>> multicast traffic, would be a valuable addition. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >>>>> Of Vikram KAUL >>>>> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 8:15 AM >>>>> To: manet@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: [manet] DLEP and broadcast/multicast >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Folks >>>>> >>>>> I have some questions about how DLEP handles multicast/broadcast traffic >>>>> and the intents that the router might have to send to the modem device. >>>>> Some of this might have been answered; but I couldn't find it in the >>>>> archives >>>>> >>>>> The inherent nature of DLEP seems focused on neighbor relationships and >>>>> link characteristics (MDR, CDR, Latency, etc) are focused on individual >>>>> neighbors as identifed by the 'MAC Address Sub-TLV' which is mandatory >>>>> in >>>>> most of the messages >>>>> >>>>> My question is related to broadcast and/or multicast traffic that would >>>>> emanate from a router. Let us presume that the underlying multicast >>>>> protocol is SMF for ease of discussion... but it could be anything that >>>>> forwards native multicast packets, either via flooding or after creating >>>>> trees. >>>>> >>>>> How can one use DLEP to specify the MDR/CDR or latency requirements for >>>>> those flows ? Is it even possible to do so ? I understand how one could >>>>> do >>>>> it for individual links to neighbors. But if I presume that multicast >>>>> and >>>>> broadcast is the predominant traffic (say 70%-80%, and I don't believe I >>>>> am wrong about that), how can one use DLEP "Link Characteristics >>>>> Request >>>>> Message" to specify that traffic to a particular MAC address should be >>>>> able to get at least what is specified by the CDR Sub-TLV >>>>> >>>>> Typically (but not always) MAC addresses for multicast IP packets are >>>>> set >>>>> to 01:00:xx:yy:zz:aa for a destination multicast address of >>>>> xx.yy.zz.aa. >>>>> Could one not have that 01:00:xx:yy:zz:aa MAC Address Sub-TLV so that >>>>> the >>>>> modem could identify that traffic to that MAC Address (and hence traffic >>>>> to that destination multicast IP address) needs to get at least that >>>>> data >>>>> rate. How the modems would achieve that is a separate question, but DLEP >>>>> does not delve into those answers anyway >>>>> >>>>> Again, it might be that the charter for DLEP is to focus specifically on >>>>> one-to-one relationships (and hence one-to-one specifications and >>>>> conditions). Could the specs not be augmented to support something on >>>>> one-to-many specifications ? Just thinking aloud. >>>>> >>>>> regards.. >>>>> Vikram >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> manet mailing list >>>>> manet@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> manet mailing list >>>> manet@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> manet mailing list >>> manet@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From jkang@telcordia.com Thu Oct 6 06:57:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A939B21F8B54 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 06:57:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.441 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.920, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w2GdHZT0oSiR for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 06:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dnsmx1rrc.telcordia.com (dnsmx1rrc.telcordia.com [128.96.20.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 620C421F8B1E for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 06:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rrc-dte-bms01.telcordia.com (rrc-dte-bms01.cc.telcordia.com [128.96.150.38]) by dnsmx1rrc.telcordia.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p96Dxq3j014423; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:00:31 -0400 (EDT) X-AuditID: 80609626-b7c76ae0000009ec-3f-4e8db47bd549 Received: from pya-dte-exhb1.dte.telcordia.com (pya-dte-exhb1.cc.telcordia.com [128.96.20.11]) by rrc-dte-bms01.telcordia.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 26.4D.02540.B74BD8E4; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rrc-dte-exmb1.dte.telcordia.com ([128.96.180.10]) by pya-dte-exhb1.dte.telcordia.com ([128.96.20.11]) with mapi; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:00:28 -0400 From: "Kang, Jaewon" To: "manet@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:00:26 -0400 Thread-Topic: [DLEP] CDR Thread-Index: AcyEMEy0zkp4qubXTImZ9E4yTUnWfg== Message-ID: <563593148DD9A040B93397F642B3C125599A6115C1@rrc-dte-exmb1.dte.telcordia.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_563593148DD9A040B93397F642B3C125599A6115C1rrcdteexmb1dt_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: Stan Ratliff Subject: [manet] [DLEP] CDR X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:57:24 -0000 --_000_563593148DD9A040B93397F642B3C125599A6115C1rrcdteexmb1dt_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I want to discuss how DLEP reports the CDR in the shared medium. From the d= raft, it is unclear to me whether the CDR conveyed by the "Link Characteris= tics ACK" message is a per-neighbor or an aggregate CDR when requested by a= "Link Characteristics Request" message without the CDR field. Depending on the radio type, the modem can support either of them or both. = For example, in TDMA, the modem can calculate the per-neighbor CDR based on= the number of time slots assigned for the neighbor. Or in CSMA, the modem = might not calculate the per-neighbor CDR and therefore, it simply reports t= he aggregate CDR. Then it is up to the router (or any application running o= n the router) to infer the per-neighbor CDR based on the aggregate CDR & (m= aybe) number of neighbors in the shared medium. (The routing daemon might a= ssign different link weights depending on the available CDR). So, if we agree that this differentiation is helpful, then I want to discus= s how to specify the type of CDR (per-neighbor or aggregate) in the Link Ch= aracteristics messages. If the modem does not support the per-neighbor CDR,= then it can signal that to the router. What I understand is that most of t= he current modems report a certain CDR value, but I am not sure whether thi= s is a per-neighbor or an aggregate CDR. (Sure, there is no confusion if th= e link is a point-to-point link). Thanks for reading. Jae from Telcordia. --_000_563593148DD9A040B93397F642B3C125599A6115C1rrcdteexmb1dt_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

I want to = discuss how DLEP reports the CDR in the shared medium. From the draft, it i= s unclear to me whether the CDR conveyed by the “Link Characteristics= ACK” message is a per-neighbor or an aggregate CDR when requested by= a “Link Characteristics Request” message without the CDR field= .

D= epending on the radio type, the modem can support either of them or both. F= or example, in TDMA, the modem can calculate the per-neighbor CDR based on = the number of time slots assigned for the neighbor. Or in CSMA, the modem m= ight not calculate the per-neighbor CDR and therefore, it simply reports th= e aggregate CDR. Then it is up to the router (or any application running on= the router) to infer the per-neighbor CDR based on the aggregate CDR &= (maybe) number of neighbors in the shared medium. (The routing daemon migh= t assign different link weights depending on the available CDR).=

 

So, if w= e agree that this differentiation is helpful, then I want to discuss how to= specify the type of CDR (per-neighbor or aggregate) in the Link Characteri= stics messages. If the modem does not support the per-neighbor CDR, then it= can signal that to the router. What I understand is that most of the curre= nt modems report a certain CDR value, but I am not sure whether this is a p= er-neighbor or an aggregate CDR. (Sure, there is no confusion if the link i= s a point-to-point link).

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Jae from Telcordia.<= /o:p>

 

 

= --_000_563593148DD9A040B93397F642B3C125599A6115C1rrcdteexmb1dt_-- From vkaul@research.telcordia.com Thu Oct 6 07:24:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52E021F8D6C for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:24:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8CDYntVgBM-Q for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flower.research.telcordia.com (flower.research.telcordia.com [128.96.41.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 699D021F8B71 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vkaul7-t61.research.telcordia.com (vpntnlA77.research.telcordia.com [128.96.58.77]) by flower.research.telcordia.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p96ERR3o016366; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:27:22 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Vikram KAUL To: "Kang, Jaewon" In-Reply-To: <563593148DD9A040B93397F642B3C125599A6115C1@rrc-dte-exmb1.dte.telcordia.com> Message-ID: References: <563593148DD9A040B93397F642B3C125599A6115C1@rrc-dte-exmb1.dte.telcordia.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (WNT 1266 2009-07-14) X-X-Sender: vkaul@mailee.research.telcordia.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII; FORMAT=flowed Content-ID: Cc: "manet@ietf.org" , Stan Ratliff Subject: Re: [manet] [DLEP] CDR X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:24:20 -0000 > > So, if we agree that this differentiation is helpful, then I want to discuss how > to specify the type of CDR (per-neighbor or aggregate) in the Link > Characteristics messages. If the modem does not support the per-neighbor CDR, My thinking is that we could again use the MAC Address sub-TLV to identify whether per-neighbor information is being requested (or even configured) or whether it is aggregate My email from yesterday talked about the MAC Address sub-TLV to have the following uses 1) The MAC address of the far-end (neighbor) router 2) An all-broadcast address 0xffffffffffff (6 bytes all 0xFF) 3) An IPv4 multicast address, the most significant two bytes being 0x0100 and the next 4 octets being the IPv4 multicast address octets Perhaps, we can add a 4) 4) An all-zero address 0x00000000000 (6 bytes all 0x00) which would specify this as a request for 'aggregate' 1) would always be used for per-neighbor Vikram > then it can signal that to the router. What I understand is that most of the > current modems report a certain CDR value, but I am not sure whether this is a > per-neighbor or an aggregate CDR. (Sure, there is no confusion if the link is a > point-to-point link). > > > > Thanks for reading. > > > > Jae from Telcordia. > > > > > > > From fred@cisco.com Thu Oct 6 07:57:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B0B21F8B5C; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:57:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.397 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.203, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GsSdsfvHo2mA; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 406C921F8801; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:57:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=1066; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317913256; x=1319122856; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RCKuhW2BLF/c0qBYEREJOZboPMw/rGD4YLTmLEc/QcY=; b=l8wFHk1GO9Li/DQZMwhoZZ2QIzC4AkdGeXq2NqEHzADnVJnkmp0QZHEX ydj1DMSLi+1VOLTCQXzKNOV/ypEZnJ9RuTE84KAqVLiw5o1r0wDhcZRDC 8Y5DqQsB/7tHR8W8YwWefeQdFNeni/abR0UPvyEZxVX5Iw/d+N9sKx3jX A=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,496,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="26512271" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Oct 2011 15:00:56 +0000 Received: from Freds-Computer.local (rtp-vpn4-1292.cisco.com [10.82.213.12]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p96F04Gn000863; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 15:00:55 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:00:57 -0400 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:00:57 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Fred Baker In-Reply-To: <5D15F60D-1922-49CD-9B3C-469FC23B663B@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:00:56 -0400 Message-Id: <96082B87-D6F6-4DCF-AEA6-789C99D5A720@cisco.com> References: <1C39033D-FBB9-4CAF-8C8C-E21AB4A1E9CE@cisco.com> <5D15F60D-1922-49CD-9B3C-469FC23B663B@isi.edu> To: Joe Touch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , Acee Lindem , homenet@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:57:46 -0000 Not sure that's the same thing. WiFi is an industry organization, not an = SDO. Yes, we could send them a letter. On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > -1 >=20 > The charter already allows for interface to external groups: >=20 > --- > The working group will also liason with external > standards bodies where it is expected that there are normative > dependencies between the specifications of the two bodies. > --- >=20 > I.e., this can be handled via liaisons (better, IMO). >=20 > Joe >=20 >=20 > On Oct 1, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Fred Baker wrote: >>=20 >> On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Don Sturek wrote: >>=20 >>> To add one more point to Fred's note: I think it is important to = get a >>> commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or = all >>> of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing. >>=20 >> That would be very interesting. >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >=20 From curtis@occnc.com Thu Oct 6 11:37:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9059A21F87D6; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:37:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ynXznUs1Gs7w; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:37:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway.ipv6.occnc.com (gateway.ipv6.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1545::1:132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBCE121F87D3; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newharbor.ipv6.occnc.com (newharbor.ipv6.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1545::1:320]) (authenticated bits=0) by gateway.ipv6.occnc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p96IepoB039229; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:40:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from curtis@occnc.com) X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 gateway.ipv6.occnc.com p96IepoB039229 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=occnc.com; s=occnc; t=1317926453; bh=ztJLFxO+Wff6PdKkJ84UqALjaimFABIuMikd+y/slKU=; h=To:cc:Reply-To:From:Subject:In-reply-to:Date; b=B7t1VOzD7eW/G+dox6R4BtmqeGTVb/u+F+CbecToAZXwtc0X92YEhJp9TCAGXv9ya h2VliTuPkECBeZIjwt+jnjMsbG/wcspNw0PF6OQCD6wg9jcQ7VHvFM2bC7oJgODmtM uX8sMWE1hJP7jmFd8zlh0YWsT4OpZ27NhS6Qhfc4= Message-Id: <201110061840.p96IepoB039229@gateway.ipv6.occnc.com> To: Fred Baker From: Curtis Villamizar In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:00:56 EDT." <96082B87-D6F6-4DCF-AEA6-789C99D5A720@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:40:51 -0700 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:40:18 -0700 Cc: Joe Touch , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , Acee Lindem , homenet@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: [manet] liasons and cross posting (was Re: Question for you) X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:37:50 -0000 In message <96082B87-D6F6-4DCF-AEA6-789C99D5A720@cisco.com> Fred Baker writes: > Not sure that's the same thing. WiFi is an industry organization, not > an SDO. Yes, we could send them a letter. IEEE would be the relevant standards organization, if we had any relevant input into what is done at layer-2. IEEE usually sticks to layer-2 and IETF to layer-3 and up (layer-2.5 if that is what you want to call MPLS). We would contact WiFi if we had as idea for logo artwork for an IETF homenet/manet/roll/rtgwg blessed profile. This is not typically what IETF does. IMHO - neither is a good candidate for a liason relationship. btw - this message is cross posted to three lists: homenet, manet, rtgwg. I suggest we drop the cc to homenet only and anyone on rtgwg and manet can join homenet and continue the discussion. In Fred's defense, when he started this thread he asked that responses be sent to him only and not to the lists. [I'm not subscribed to manet, so this email may not get there.] Curtis > On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > -1 > > > > The charter already allows for interface to external groups: > > > > --- > > The working group will also liason with external > > standards bodies where it is expected that there are normative > > dependencies between the specifications of the two bodies. > > --- > > > > I.e., this can be handled via liaisons (better, IMO). > > > > Joe > > > > > > On Oct 1, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > >> > >> On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > >> > >>> To add one more point to Fred's note: I think it is important to get a > >>> commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or all > >>> of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing. > >> > >> That would be very interesting. From ulrich@herberg.name Thu Oct 6 11:47:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 609BA21F8CE6; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.926 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SxvrOF98xfeq; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACFFE21F8CE0; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24so29376wyg.31 for ; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:50:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=0QgxndHEZJWYe+jdW7aNlHKlR7gzivxLvtaemBGs+2Q=; b=l8kTPfxqft6L6/nH6APdmnbV0SKkRpsVEp9h96UAj4ITM45CnJClN6RdHp+w4MKTyX K6p6fYiffsr4/x4fE12tRpGj+zG2m+9QVa44swKT52R/8NcnPxXJxtME5X/FrSHO7K8p Qt5+t3MDZu/tix0ebnV74sxBWwPc8saDkWIE4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.30.154 with SMTP id u26mr1367816wbc.73.1317927052304; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:50:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.7.68 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:50:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201110061840.p96IepoB039229@gateway.ipv6.occnc.com> References: <96082B87-D6F6-4DCF-AEA6-789C99D5A720@cisco.com> <201110061840.p96IepoB039229@gateway.ipv6.occnc.com> Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:50:52 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: curtis@occnc.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=002215974902cae35c04aea5cdc3 Cc: homenet@ietf.org, MANET IETF , rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] liasons and cross posting (was Re: Question for you) X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:47:43 -0000 --002215974902cae35c04aea5cdc3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Curtis, Sorry for my off-topic email: On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > [...] > btw - this message is cross posted to three lists: homenet, manet, > rtgwg. I suggest we drop the cc to homenet only and anyone on rtgwg > and manet can join homenet and continue the discussion. > Actually, I would prefer to limit it to one mailing list (e.g. homenet). As many, like you, are not subscribed to MANET, the MANET chairs or I have to accept each reply manually because of the mailing list filters (and currently, there are several emails per day). I have sent an email to the MANET list that the thread is continued on homenet only, so everyone interested in the topic may follow the thread there. Best regards Ulrich > > > On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > > -1 > > > > > > The charter already allows for interface to external groups: > > > > > > --- > > > The working group will also liason with external > > > standards bodies where it is expected that there are normative > > > dependencies between the specifications of the two bodies. > > > --- > > > > > > I.e., this can be handled via liaisons (better, IMO). > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > >> > > >> On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > > >> > > >>> To add one more point to Fred's note: I think it is important to get > a > > >>> commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or > all > > >>> of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing. > > >> > > >> That would be very interesting. > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > --002215974902cae35c04aea5cdc3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Curtis,

Sorry for my off-topic email:

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> wr= ote:
[...]
btw - this message is cross posted to three lists: homenet, manet,
rtgwg. =A0I suggest we drop the cc to homenet only and anyone on rtgwg
and manet can join homenet and continue the discussion.

Actually, I would prefer to limit it to one mailing list (e.g. homene= t). As many, like you, are not subscribed to MANET, the MANET chairs or I h= ave to accept each reply manually because of the mailing list filters (and = currently, there are several emails per day). I have sent an email to the M= ANET list that the thread is continued on homenet only, so everyone interes= ted in the topic may follow the thread there.

Best regards
Ulrich
=A0

> On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
> > -1
> >
> > The charter already allows for interface to external groups:
> >
> > ---
> > The working group will also liason with external
> > standards bodies where it is expected that there are normative > > dependencies between the specifications of the two bodies.
> > ---
> >
> > I.e., this can be handled via liaisons (better, IMO).
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > On Oct 1, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Don Sturek wrote:
> >>
> >>> To add one more point to Fred's note: =A0I think it i= s important to get a
> >>> commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, ad= opt some or all
> >>> of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing.=
> >>
> >> That would be very interesting.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

--002215974902cae35c04aea5cdc3-- From palm@broadcom.com Thu Oct 6 18:57:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3356421F8A58; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:57:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P2eMZlQXQpdJ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:57:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mms2.broadcom.com (mms2.broadcom.com [216.31.210.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8392621F85BB; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:57:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.9.200.133] by mms2.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Thu, 06 Oct 2011 19:07:14 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: D3C04415-6FA8-4F2C-93C1-920E106A2031 Received: from IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.252.49.31]) by IRVEXCHHUB02.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.9.200.133]) with mapi; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:00:16 -0700 From: "Stephen [kiwin] Palm" To: "'curtis@occnc.com'" Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:00:40 -0700 Thread-Topic: [homenet] liasons and cross posting (was Re: Question for you) Thread-Index: AcyEV4fZDkVhhX0XRT6UsR1YWzbbiQAPWI4u Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201110061840.p96IepoB039229@gateway.ipv6.occnc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 629081585IS16255453-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 19:06:12 -0700 Cc: "'homenet@ietf.org'" , "'manet@ietf.org'" , "Stephen \[kiwin\] Palm" , "'rtgwg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] liasons and cross posting (was Re: Question for you) X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:57:39 -0000 Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) is also a standards setting organization in addition t= o its marketing role. Relevent work should be liaised to WFA.=20 I can help arrange a liaision application.=20 Regards, kiwin ------- Stephen [kiwin] Palm Ph.D. W: http://www.kiwin.com Senior Technical Director T: +1-949-926-PALM Broadcom - Broadband Communications Group=20 ----- Original Message ----- From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@occnc.com] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 11:40 AM=0A= To: Fred Baker Cc: Don Sturek ; Joe Touch ; C Chauvenet <= c.chauvenet@watteco.com>; MANET IETF ; Mark Townsley ; Acee Lindem ; homenet@ietf.org ; rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: [homenet] liasons and cross posting (was Re: Question for you) In message <96082B87-D6F6-4DCF-AEA6-789C99D5A720@cisco.com> Fred Baker writes: =20 > Not sure that's the same thing. WiFi is an industry organization, not > an SDO. Yes, we could send them a letter. IEEE would be the relevant standards organization, if we had any relevant input into what is done at layer-2. IEEE usually sticks to layer-2 and IETF to layer-3 and up (layer-2.5 if that is what you want to call MPLS). We would contact WiFi if we had as idea for logo artwork for an IETF homenet/manet/roll/rtgwg blessed profile. This is not typically what IETF does. IMHO - neither is a good candidate for a liason relationship. btw - this message is cross posted to three lists: homenet, manet, rtgwg. I suggest we drop the cc to homenet only and anyone on rtgwg and manet can join homenet and continue the discussion. In Fred's defense, when he started this thread he asked that responses be sent to him only and not to the lists. [I'm not subscribed to manet, so this email may not get there.] Curtis > On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > =20 > > -1 > >=20 > > The charter already allows for interface to external groups: > >=20 > > --- > > The working group will also liason with external > > standards bodies where it is expected that there are normative > > dependencies between the specifications of the two bodies. > > --- > >=20 > > I.e., this can be handled via liaisons (better, IMO). > >=20 > > Joe > >=20 > >=20 > > On Oct 1, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > >>=20 > >> On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > >>=20 > >>> To add one more point to Fred's note: I think it is important to get= a > >>> commercial group like Wi-Fi to participate in Homenet, adopt some or = all > >>> of the drafts/RFCs then sponsor interoperability testing. > >>=20 > >> That would be very interesting. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet From mcr@sandelman.ca Fri Oct 7 17:17:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 394AA21F87FC; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:17:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.46 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MpeQ2xSKn1cD; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592BC21F87C9; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (173-101-76-84.pools.spcsdns.net [173.101.76.84]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76986343A4; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 20:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by marajade.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 96E4598CB4; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 18:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marajade.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921F398CB3; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 18:44:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Rex Buddenberg In-Reply-To: <1317232463.2243.406.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <3B359047-B693-4879-B1C6-13EF26437F73@cisco.com> <1D3C1E64-F7A3-4888-B77A-CFB6CE2BCD1D@townsley.net> <1317232463.2243.406.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.1; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 18:44:13 -0400 Message-ID: <12459.1318027453@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:19:09 -0700 Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , C Chauvenet , MANET IETF , Mark Townsley , "Fred Baker \(fred\)" , homenet@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] [homenet] Question for you X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 00:17:23 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "Rex" =3D=3D Rex Buddenberg writes: Rex> Scenario for orientation. Instead of the EMT in the ambulance Rex> having a cellphone to call the emergency room, the EMT will be Rex> armed with several diagnostic gadgets attached to a LAN (either Rex> ethernet or WiFi). And a router. The router will, in turn be Rex> linked to the rest of internet with a radio-WAN. Rex> Scenario implications. Right now, emergency services tend to Rex> rely on a set of high sites -- Monterey County where I live, Rex> has eleven. But the broadband technologies all look better Rex> with an order of magnitude more sites (think schoolhouse roofs) Rex> and consequently more handoffs (aka routing table volatility). Great, but unless you are saying that the EMT is going to use my home network to get more bits through, I don't think this is at all in scope. The EMT have the organization and manpower and mandate to have a managed network. The home network has no manpower, and is seldom organized. (The more geekier the network, the less organized :-)) =2D-=20 ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewall= s [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net archit= ect[ ] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device dri= ver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video then sign the petition.=20 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUATo+AvYCLcPvd0N1lAQKDxgf/S4/yiS0mpPJ0KoqyJJNiNVlUgU1G16YT r/8thGM0vZwOsL/MRwHbnoQORpQwUyQ0f4XtnKGl4i6y7U8yk3b8rA4np4RqNcQh MyBC+W3zmhwNQq6uFlu8fy6Yql8Gvz1opDmCBzGDtXSGQ6cA8nBaaMteSLX4f9wX baEi0VOXzxFI+V5vBx3Pji6iNj18TiZQ1+10s1/ZPKxbuRDf/fVyzz5BVXDy6yGS QpMH6VE/AGz+M63+s6uX8/sx3seT3WWtXG8+Vk6GZ946Qa5R4Ro7upe7226BMHqh 4ofMyjJFdYe+e0K/HuF6C36aUwXmDSs9WVqCN6qs+K9CYqadfg6GUQ== =EQd1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Oct 14 03:23:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135D621F8B29; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:23:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EHSLDOOqMMEM; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4F021F8B0A; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:23:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.60 Message-ID: <20111014102307.17362.10359.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:23:07 -0700 Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:23:08 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group = of the IETF. Title : The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 Author(s) : Thomas Heide Clausen Christopher Dearlove Philippe Jacquet Filename : draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt Pages : 104 Date : 2011-10-14 This document describes version 2 of the Optimized Link State Routing (OLSRv2) protocol for Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt From Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com Fri Oct 14 03:31:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1140221F850E for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:31:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H1X+1J7LIBM7 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:31:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ukmta3.baesystems.com (ukmta3.baesystems.com [20.133.40.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098E621F84CB for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:31:00 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,345,1315177200"; d="scan'208";a="163749581" Received: from unknown (HELO baemasodc004.greenlnk.net) ([10.108.36.11]) by Baemasodc001ir.sharelnk.net with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2011 11:30:59 +0100 Received: from glkms1103.GREENLNK.NET (glkms1103.greenlnk.net [10.108.36.194]) by baemasodc004.greenlnk.net (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p9EAUwtK010997 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:30:58 +0100 Received: from GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET ([10.15.184.93]) by glkms1103.GREENLNK.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:30:58 +0100 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:30:58 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20111014102307.17362.10359.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt Thread-Index: AcyKW0m92c6vMICWQbyhRPjLgtn/9wAAL1HQ References: <20111014102307.17362.10359.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Oct 2011 10:30:58.0658 (UTC) FILETIME=[5CDE0420:01CC8A5C] Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:31:02 -0000 This is the first draft both with metrics in and wth no missing sections. Comments welcome. -- Christopher Dearlove Technology Leader, Communications Group Communications and Networks Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194 Fax: +44 1245 242124 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 -----Original Message----- From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org Sent: 14 October 2011 11:23 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt *** WARNING *** This message has originated outside your organisation, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Working Group of the IETF. Title : The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 Author(s) : Thomas Heide Clausen Christopher Dearlove Philippe Jacquet Filename : draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt Pages : 104 Date : 2011-10-14 This document describes version 2 of the Optimized Link State Routing (OLSRv2) protocol for Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** From ulrich@herberg.name Fri Oct 14 06:47:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD8221F8C4F for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 06:47:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id deMY3NavqBt9 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 06:47:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44DF221F8513 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 06:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24so3426110wyg.31 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 06:47:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jup8exCDL+ixmO2uXmc8iKBhqLUUq8EatKZyHrWqgWA=; b=VUxj4MkhB54ChwRn0MgodrTO1lOUhJRw1hGixPkQQA3r/won0DaddEwLeBK34thg6y jFUvADdzwHFwRsBVGxqMU0yKHRjthm1t8bpARjyAcR9AXL4hiyHZ3I07TAHhnT42vJjy 65BxOJiEALtpDBIFJsXpbRPNjhE9oGlVqGds0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.7.25 with SMTP id b25mr2931537wbb.103.1318600040185; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 06:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.138.132 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 06:47:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20111014102307.17362.10359.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:47:20 +0900 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=002215727532feff4b04af427ead Cc: manet@ietf.org Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:47:25 -0000 --002215727532feff4b04af427ead Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, I have sent a detailed review of an alpha version of -13 to the authors, and the current (submitted) version -13 addresses all of my comments. I think we should issue a WGLC soon. Best regards Ulrich On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) < Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote: > This is the first draft both with metrics in and wth no missing > sections. Comments welcome. > > -- > Christopher Dearlove > Technology Leader, Communications Group > Communications and Networks Capability > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK > Tel: +44 1245 242194 Fax: +44 1245 242124 > > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, > Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 > > -----Original Message----- > From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of internet-drafts@ietf.org > Sent: 14 October 2011 11:23 > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: manet@ietf.org > Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt > > > *** WARNING *** > > This message has originated outside your organisation, > either from an external partner or the Global Internet. > Keep this in mind if you answer this message. > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks > Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol > version 2 > Author(s) : Thomas Heide Clausen > Christopher Dearlove > Philippe Jacquet > Filename : draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt > Pages : 104 > Date : 2011-10-14 > > This document describes version 2 of the Optimized Link State Routing > (OLSRv2) protocol for Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs). > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > > ******************************************************************** > This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended > recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. > You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or > distribute its contents to any other person. > ******************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > --002215727532feff4b04af427ead Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

I have sent a detailed review of an alpha version of -13 to the = authors, and the current (submitted) version -13 addresses all of my commen= ts. I think we should issue a WGLC soon.

Best regards
Ulrich

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Dearlove, C= hristopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote:
This is the first draft both with metrics in and wth no missing
sections. Comments welcome.

--
Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Communications and Networks Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245= 242194 =A0Fax: +44 1245 242124

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: manet-bounces@ietf.org = [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of internet-drafts@ietf.org=
Sent: 14 October 2011 11:23
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Cc: manet@ietf.org
Subject: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt


=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0*** WARNING ***

=A0This message has originated outside your organisation,
=A0either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
=A0 =A0 =A0Keep this in mind if you answer this message.


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
Working Group of the IETF.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : The Optimized Link State Routin= g Protocol
version 2
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : Thomas Heide Clausen
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Christopher Dearlove =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Philippe Jacquet
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Filename =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-13.txt =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 104
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Date =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2011-10-14

=A0 This document describes version 2 of the Optimized Link State Routing<= br> =A0 (OLSRv2) protocol for Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs).


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-= olsrv2-13.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp= .ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-ol= srv2-13.txt
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


***************************************************************= *****
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--002215727532feff4b04af427ead--