Hello Bing, I'm not sure I fully understand and agree with what you are trying to say with this sentence:
> But in some closed solutions, multi-vendor interoperation is not the No.1 > consideration for customers. If you think that multi-vendor interoperability is not needed what's the point of making a standard? Why discussing it here? You could make your own choice for protocol without asking for WG opinion/consensus. Roberta 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 _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
