Subject: Re: [homenet] other routing options

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:27:01 -0800

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 13:35, Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> But I'm not sure I really understand the need for it. There's no shortage
> of IPv4 address space in homenets, because they are small and in RFC
> 1918 space. So if you are routing IPv6 in a home net, why not also route
> IPv4?

Because the primitives that are available to you in IPv4 (essentially, NAT
and DHCPv4) are different to the primitives available to you in IPv6. IPv6
allows you to do stuff like deprecate your default gateway and prefix, and
to have multiple default gateways. IPv4 does not. So I suspect that when
you look at things, you're not going to be able to route IPv4 reliably.

---

From: Jim Gettys <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:38:58 -0500

On 12/01/2011 03:27 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 13:35, Brian E Carpenter
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     of IPv4 address space in homenets, because they are small and in
>     RFC 1918 space. So if you are routing IPv6 in a home net, why not
>     also route IPv4?
>
>
> Because the primitives that are available to you in IPv4 (essentially,
> NAT and DHCPv4) are different to the primitives available to you in
> IPv6. IPv6 allows you to do stuff like deprecate your default gateway
> and prefix, and to have multiple default gateways. IPv4 does not. So I
> suspect that when you look at things, you're not going to be able to
> route IPv4 reliably.
>
This mail serves as "running code" counter example.  CeroWrt routes IPv4
today, and I've been happy for months.

The questions around routing versus bridging are completely different
than that alleged: the issue is whether you can discover the services
you may need that are present on other networks on the home, e.g.
available via MDNS, or SMB, etc. There are implicit assumptions that
various gear has that everything may be in the same broadcast domain,
and that is exactly what we're trying to avoid by routing everything (as
wireless broadcast is an offence against humanity).  So we're still
shaking down problems that surface (e.g. by using mdnsresponder, and
seeing if we can get a wins server properly configured and the like. 
Whether there are any show-stoppers lurking, I do not yet know.

Since CeroWrt traffic was cluttering up the more general discussions on
bufferbloat, we just split those off. If you are interested, join the
mailing lists on CeroWrt.  See the attached mail.

Fundamentally, I personally believe anything this working group does
should be tested in running code before going anywhere in the standards
process.  Without running code, consensus will be hard to achieve.
                Best regards,
                        Jim Gettys

Subject: cerowrt related mailing lists created
From: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
To: bloat-devel <[email-masked]>, bloat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 19:35:32 +0100
List-Id: "Developers working on AQM, device drivers, and networking stacks" <bloat-devel.lists.bufferbloat.net>

I have created cerowrt-users, cerowrt-devel, and cerowrt-commits

mailing lists  on http://lists.bufferbloat.net

Please subscribe to one or more of those if the cerowrt test router subproject
 is your interest. I note also you can submit bug reports and comments directly
into the 'cerowrt' user on lists.bufferbloat.net and they will
automagically enter
the bug system there.

For now I plan to keep using the #bufferbloat channel for cerowrt support
unless that gets out of hand too.

I will periodically point out news of import regarding cerowrt and as relating
to bufferbloat to multiple lists here, but let's keep stuff that
mostly cerowrt and
not bloat related over there, ok?

If anyone has any other suggestions for useful lists to create, now is
the time to ask.

One of my thoughts was to resurrect the old lartc list, which
discussed user issues with
traffic shaping and control in particular. It was useful in it's
heyday and there seems
to be some market for the idea re-occurring.

There has been some talk of doing that
instead over on vger.kernel.org, and I'm cool with that, if it happens.

comments?

-- 
Dave Täht
SKYPE: davetaht
US Tel: 1-239-829-5608
FR Tel: 0638645374
http://www.bufferbloat.net
_______________________________________________
Bloat-devel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat-devel

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 13:48:02 -0800

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 13:38, Jim Gettys <[email-masked]> wrote:

> This mail serves as "running code" counter example.  CeroWrt routes
> IPv4 today, and I've been happy for months.
>

Sure, it will work in static topologies. It won't work so well when you
move stuff around. Bridging, or IPv6 routing, does.