On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:22 AM, C Chauvenet wrote:

> Hi all, 
> 
> This is an valuable and necessary initiative.
> 
> As I follow the ROLL WG, may I point you to some doc that have been produced 
> by this WG, and may address some of your questions :
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-07 : This draft 
> provide a good survey of several routing protocols (OSPF/IS-IS, OLSRv2, 
> TBRPF, RIP, AODV, DYMO, DSR) and evaluate each candidate regarding metrics 
> that are relevant for Low-power and Lossy Networks (LLNs).
> I think LLNs are applicable to Homenet networks.
> 
> RFC 5826 : http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5826 ("Home Automation Routing 
> Requirements in LLNs") : This doc designed by the ROLL WG gather some 
> requirements regarding routing in Home environments. It may provide good 
> input for the Homenet WG.
> 
> You may also be interested in the Building version of these requirements, in 
> RFC5867 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5867.
> 
> I'm not an expert in Home's Networks, and they may have some different 
> requirements than LLNs that ROLL is looking at.
> Please educate me on that point.
> But I think we should consider the work that have been done for such 
> constrained devices.

Thank you for the pointers.

The majority of IP-based home networks today are neither power-constrained nor 
particularly lossy. So, while we can certainly learn from LLN requirements 
analysis, I do think the base requirements in homenet could turn out to be 
quite different, or at least a smaller and slightly different subset, of the 
overall LLN requirements. 

Certainly, home networks have an emerging IP-based "low power and lossy" 
component in them. One could even argue that it will become dominant at some 
time in the future, but that's a leap I personally would be pretty 
uncomfortable in the group making without some very strong data to back it up. 

- Mark

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Cédric.
> 
> 
> Le 26 sept. 2011 à 21:14, Fred Baker a écrit :
> 
>> I'm trying to do a somewhat complete requirements and pro/con analysis for 
>> IPv6 routing in a small network, the obvious examples being residential and 
>> SOHO networks. What I have in pixels at this instant is:
>> 
>>    <section title="Contestant protocols">
>>        <t></t>
>>      <section title="Routing Information Protocol">
>>        <t></t>
>>      </section>
>>      <section title="Open Shortest Path First Routing Protocol">
>>        <t></t>
>>      </section>
>>      <section title="IS-IS Routing Protocol">
>>        <t></t>
>>      </section>
>>      <section title="Border Gateway Protocol">
>>        <t></t>
>>      </section>
>>      <section title="Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks">
>>        <t></t>
>>      </section>
>>      <section title="Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing">
>>        <t>
>> Can you say "DYMO"?
>>        </t>
>>      </section>
>>      <section title="Optimized Link State Routing Protocol">
>>        <t></t>
>>      </section>
>>    </section>
>> 
>> For some of these, the obvious comment is "YMBK". Some will feel that their 
>> selection is the obvious given and will be able to go on at some length as 
>> to why, and may be surprised to find that people disagree with them. 
>> 
>> I'd like to do several things:
>> (a) make the list as reasonably complete as possible consistent with openly 
>> documented protocols,
>> (b) provide a reasonably complete and objective analysis of each as I can,
>> (c) identify the key reasons one would choose each - if there is a reason at 
>> all, and
>> (d) identify the key reasons one would not.
>> 
>> What I don't want to accomplish is deep-six these lists and half a dozen 
>> others in arguments.
>> 
>> Do me a favor. Let's do this in private mail. If you think of a protocol I 
>> should mention that I haven't, let me know. If you think there is a really 
>> good argument for or against any of them in particular, let me know. If you 
>> think I'm nuts - I already know that, you don't need to remind me :-)
>> _______________________________________________
>> homenet mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Reply via email to