[CUWiN-Dev] CUWiN 1.0 wishlist?

[Bill Comisky]

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, David Young wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 12:16:11PM -0500, Bill Comisky wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> I wanted to revisit the CUWiN 1.0 discussion.  A number of things have
>> been fixed, and things seem to be running fairly smoothly here.. good
>> uptimes, haven't seen nodes dropping into the debugger, etc.  I wanted to
>> get a feel for where you think CUWiN is relative to a 1.0 release, what
>> the blocking issues are, and what kind of timeline you expect to get from
>> 0.5.8 to 1.0.
>
> First, an update on 0.5.8: I will make a snapshot of my NetBSD sources
> for 0.5.8.  I believe your routeviz patches should go into 0.5.8; I will
> commit those and pull them onto the 0.5.8 branch tonight.

great!

> I expect for us to go clear through 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9 before we get
> to 1.0.  I don't expect for us to release 1.0 for a year or more.  Before
> the system goes to 1.0, hslsd needs to become more feature-complete, the
> name service needs to be debugged and its feature-set needs to be more
> comprehensive, and the web UI needs to let us set up multiple interfaces,
> firewall and bandwidth-shaping, etc.  We also need to improve the route
> visualization.  I also think we need to support more applications "out
> of the box."  Important optional features will include a SIP proxy and
> a captive portal.  All of this will take at least a year.

What I'd like to see is a release we can point to and say that the basic 
routing is stable, though it may lack the other, mostly routing 
independent features you mentioned.  Something that communities could get 
started with soon(er), and have some confidence that things will just 
work.  How far away do you see a stable routing, no-frills release?  What 
things are needed to make hslsd "feature-complete"?

Whether that release is called .6, .7, or 1.0 seems somewhat arbitrary to 
me; that is, lacking any existing funding/project mandate for features 
included in 1.0.  Sascha makes a compelling argument for limiting the 
scope of 1.0 to help secure funding for the development of the additional 
features you mentioned.

>> I want to make sure we're directing our energy here on those issues needed
>> to get to 1.0, and also to make sure we're testing/looking for the right
>> things on our testbed.  Also, I know we've been getting a lot of interest
>> from different groups (community groups, potential strategic partners,
>> etc).  It'd be helpful to have ballpark dates to provide them, and also to
>> help us plan for deployments, upgrades, etc.
>
> The really important thing to test is the routing.  Virtually everything
> else rests on that.  Here are some things to look for:

We'll try to come up with some experiments to check the routing 
performance as you've outlined.

bill

--
Bill Comisky
bcomisky at pobox.com