From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x235.google.com (mail-ob0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CC9721F1CF for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:45:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id vb8so33579929obc.12 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 11:45:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hXmI/S55RqFTN959czjLvdZD0QHDW5Ek+kGw3iPfFMs=; b=sH9EHe0sSfeHHwQGFB3wVY2S8n0MvynAWAmGh3NAY36ktfOcuG59izULP15Gq/9lip GXuDa9rffFOtSHj4gaQBM9hUBLvrwDhm3KYKeC0HbTk0tEk8AndYB35annwrdqVC33Cc TuXFApwW4jdx0pn0B2oOq1s3VSaegsJNF2dEki3kRgeJc5t6bemqV8oG4zzqUZI/T8nV tXI4AYm+enGuI4xE4HUaJW9O8wd8+HsnDEbWpO2T7gmxR2qvw9tn1+s+pu2cRQCJB0gL EqbW5SdMns1tMNpJeEieZYAHZhcf6qDAj/FbF8w6JLZT+v+Zqx6fm69b1V9CXv5Md3Pw VNFQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.79.10 with SMTP id f10mr19022609oex.8.1425325536019; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 11:45:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.51.66 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:45:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <54EE258E.8060302@gmail.com> <201502272200.t1RM0Aru020484@maildrop31.somerville.occnc.com> <7ia8zvjkdq.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:45:35 -0800 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 19:46:05 -0000 I currently plan to enable some form of ipv6 translation by default in the next version of cerowrt - and make direct access optional - (or the reverse! I'm easy ) if somehow we get it together enough to actually have a way to do a cerowrt-scale effort again. Any objections here? Suggestions for how to make one of the ipv6 translation techniques work right? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document To: Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: "" , Ray Hunter , "homenet@ietf.org Group" , Teco Boot , Mikael Abrahamsson On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >>> If we carry NAT over to IPV6, then shame on us. > >> I am sorry, I no longer share this opinion [...] The next version of >> cerowrt will do translation from the external IPv6 address range to >> a static internal one (or ones, in the case of multiple egress >> gateways), > > (Insert strong expression of disagreement here. Use any means available > to convince Dave otherwise, including flattery, threats, demagoguery, ad > hominem attacks and photographs of cute animals.) Hahaha. Thanks juliusz! I have laughed far too little in the past few weeks. ( just one example: http://the-edge.blogspot.com/2015/03/virgin-media-fixing-epidemic-of.html ) Let me make clear: CeroWrt is (or was, ENOFUNDING) a *RESEARCH PROJECT*, IMHO *the best - and nearly the only - one - that exists*, one that has poked into many of the very real problems billions of home networks have. http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt Through it, we identified *and fixed* multiple epidemic problems so far, including fixing bufferbloat, making dnssec deployable, and - along with the wonderful devs over at openwrt - helped make ipv6 work a zillion times better along the edge than it ever has before. We have made available the code, and firmware, to a large, dedicated, brilliant group of testers, who have all done testing, providing their feedback on each idea, each rfc, and the good and bad ideas in both the code and rfcs better sorted out. And a metric ton of bugs were fixed along the way in both the kernel and the userspace stacks. Some of these things have fed back as requirements into this wg, notably the need to do mdns proxying, and prefix distribution, and to some extent, source specific routing, and (finally) you are beginning to recognize the real problems and complexities that real home networks have, and are beginning to grok wifi. Regrettably, progress on multiple other fronts for CeroWrt have been slow (no funding, not enough devs), and of all the problems I have run into in comcast's (otherwise pretty darn good) ipv6 deployment, getting renumbered has been the biggest PITA, followed by a couple borked dhcpv6 implementations, and then by trying to get hnetd to work at all - at the moment it feels like the "systemd for home routers" - and that is *not* a complement. To make it clear - after actually *testing* some form of ipv6 translation technology - maybe all of them - in the next version of CeroWrt[1] - we plan to find the bugs, document the problems, and do whatever we can to fix them - and... if those are more severe than the problems that hnetd introduces - try to fix hnetd - with enough people helping, at the same time - and incrementally evolve whatever we works best into something your mom can use and home, and small business - into something that can be more widely deployed. I am rather upset at the whole wg for the pathetic level of actual testing and dogfooding of what code now exists - only *1* person was willing to to do a plugfest on my previous "modest proposal", and he - like me - is too broke to attend the ietf, but not too broke to spend 60 bucks, 5 minutes reflashing an off-the-shelf router, and do a little testing on it's behalf. Arguably hnetd now has the most amazing ratio of ported code (1000s of platforms, 36 cpu architectures) to actual users (4?) that has ever existed. I - and my userbase - are not going to let y'all inflict the broken ideas on my mom, or for that matter the home router industry, without actually testing running code. Sorting out the good ideas from the bad is why we actually build things, and test, before committing to final versions of specifications. At least, that's how I have always operated. > -- Juliusz [1] And the main reason for the next version of cerowrt has little to do with the products of this working group - but to further develop, and test, some MAJOR improvements to wifi we've come up with. -- Dave T=C3=A4ht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb