Bing, I´m afraid that´s a can of worms... Homenet has been stalled for a
long time, and quite a few IETFs were only about the fight "my routing
protocol is better than yours". I´m afraid if we enter this discussion,
we have 2 years of arguments ahead for no obvious benefit.
Let me ask the other way round: With the specs as they are, what will
NOT work?
My view: Unless we have a real good reason, we should not enter this
debate...
Michael
On 07/06/2017 06:04, Liubing (Leo) wrote:
Hi ACP co-authors,
(Maybe you missed my last mail "Regarding ACP routing protocol", let me re-post
it with a clearer title and CC to you.)
When I discuss ACP with some product people, they are always curious about why
we choosed RPL for routing.
I understand the benefits of RPL in ACP, it is lightweight and much more
scalable in a single routing area, but most of the non-IoT network devices seem
lacking the support of RPL.
So, please pardon my iteration on this problem, can we possibly make another
traditional IGP literally legal in the ACP document? (e.g. ISIS-autoconf or
OSPFv3-autoconf) I know supporting multiple protocols would potentially cause
interoperation issues. But in some closed solutions, multi-vendor
interoperation is not the No.1 consideration for customers. If ACP allows
ISIS-autoconf or OSPFv3-autoconf, I think ACP could be more widely adopted in
non-IoT network scenarios.
Any comments/eggs? :)
B.R.
Bing
-----Original Message-----
From: Anima [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Liubing (Leo)
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 5:53 PM
To: Anima WG
Subject: [Anima] Regarding ACP routing protocol
Hi all,
When I discuss ACP with some product people, they are always curious
about why we choose RPL for routing.
I understand the benefits of RPL in ACP, it is lightweight and much more
scalable in a single routing area, but most of the non-IoT network devices
seem like lack the support of RPL.
So, please pardon my iteration on this problem, can we possibly make
another more traditional IGP literally legal in the ACP document? (e.g.
ISIS-autoconf or OSPFv3-autoconf) I know supporting multiple protocols
would potentially cause interoperation issue. But in some closed solutions,
multi-vendor interoperation is not the No.1 consideration for customers. If
ACP allows ISIS-autoconf or OSPFv3-autoconf, I think ACP could be more
widely adopted in non-IoT network devices.
Any comments? Or eggs :)
B.R.
Bing
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
