Hi Roberta, Thanks for your comments. Inline.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Anima [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roberta > Maglione (robmgl) > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 8:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Anima] RPL alternatives in ACP? > > 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. My thought (maybe wrong) is that it's about perception of the user/customers: is a non-RPL ACP still be "the ACP"? In other words, when using some other IGPs that some old-fashion developers/customers are more familiar with and have more confidence, and it could be still identified as standard ACP, maybe it's good for the adoption of this technology? Especially when users don't care about multi-vendor interoperability in some scenarios. But to be clarified, I do like RPL from technical aspect. The above thought is kind of compromise to peoples' perception when promoting a new technology. Best regards, Bing > 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 _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
