[Commotion-dev] Adding a cmake option for Babel in Commotion 1.2?

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Josh King <jking at opentechinstitute.org> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I can't really speak to Mathieu's use of Tinc, but I can talk a little
> bit about IPv6.
>
> v1.2 of Commotion will have the basic IPv6 packages available, though
> due to space constraints I haven't decided yet which ones will be
> included by default and which ones will just be available for
> installation through the package repository. However, all of our
> auto-configuration stuff still uses IPv4. This is largely a question of
> not currently having capacity to thoroughly test all of our stack on
> IPv6 for this release and making the necessary updates (I would be happy
> to work with anyone who'd like to help out with this). v1.2 is basically
> done, and is just held up due to a lockup bug that requires a bit more
> testing which I haven't had the time to complete, and finishing a bit of
> GUI cleanup.

Did you fit sqm-scripts in there?

> After v1.2, I intend to focus on more fundamental changes and
> improvements for v2.0. One of these will be moving to IPv6 by default. I
> also intend to finish integration of a lot of Serval's work that we
> helped fund but haven't had a chance to fully leverage. Since we're
> already running Serval's infrastructure, which is addressed and routed
> using elliptic curve crypto keys, my thought is to make the best use of

I note that I am a little scared by everyone converging on a single  "best"
crypto algorithm. I would much rather there be diversity and at least two rather
different forms of crypto throughout the network - the vpn layer and a ssh
or mosh like layer below it should be very, very different....

> this by borrowing the ideas (if not the primitives) from
> cryptographically generated addresses
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_Generated_Address) to
> add an IPv6 address for each key assigned to a particularly router.

hmm. I will have to think about this. Was giving HIP a revisit recently.

> Incidentally, I also want to move to assigning the mesh routing
> addresses to the loopback interface (borrowing a page from OLSRv2)
> rather than the network interfaces, to basically dodge the whole problem
> of managing the addressing for arbitrary numbers of routable network
> interfaces (all the interfaces would just use link-local autogenerated
> addresses to pass the backhaul traffic). This is a just a thought,
> though.

No, I agree. In the case of ipv6, it is a real pita to number every interface
and only sort of necessary when you want to distribute a prefix. I *am*
loving source specific routing, and could forsee a day where a device
had a 1000 local ipv6 addresses to chose from, each going out a different
gateway somewhere else on the network....

> I'm also interested in HOMENET (which has initial support in
> Chaos Calmer).

I am more than a little down on hnetd presently. It needs more
dogfooding and, well, I was not expecting the god-like perspective it
wants over the whole network. In supporting a DV protocol for homenet
(babel), I was aiming for the most minimal amount of shared state
there - only to be blind sided by the new, proposed address
distribution protocol wanting to know ALL....

serval looks very interesting, I had not been tracking the work at
all. And I didnt know SEND was ressurected to any extent. Thx for the
update, I am liking what I see here.

In tossing out hnetd from my network, I started down another, simpler,
prototypical path, and I dont know where I'll end up....

https://github.com/dtaht/ipv6_selfassign



-- 
Dave Täht
worldwide bufferbloat report:
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat
And:
What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone?
https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast