On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mark Townsley wrote:

> Since you asked, *I* think that a homenet has functional overlap (what I 
> called "at least a smaller and slightly different subset" in my email) in 
> terms of requirements to LLNs. At first blush, it looks like RPL has lots of 
> functionality - perhaps more than we really need for homenet, and by your own 
> admission more than you need for LLN's - but will hold reservation on what I 
> think best fits the bill until we see Fred's analysis, hear from others, etc. 

My two yen, which may be all it's worth...

If I were a Linksys/D-Link/NetGear/* product manager asking about what 
protocols to put in, I wouldn't be asking about what still exists in Internet 
Drafts and is thought by the engineers designing it to be better than sliced 
bread, but about what was inexpensive to implement, likely to be close to 
bug-free, and definitively accomplished the goal. I note that most routers for 
the IPv4 residential routing marketplace implement RIPv2; I know of one that 
implements no routing protocol, one that implements RIPv2 and RIPv1 (!), and 
one that implements RIPv2 and OSPF (don't ask which they are, I don't 
remember). This is from a google search of residential routers a few months ago 
and covered perhaps 20 products from half as many vendors. So my first 
inclination is to say that for a residential IPv6 network, RIPng is probably an 
image match for those vendors.

I have a personal bias in the direction of OSPF or IS-IS; I think that once the 
code is debugged, SPF-based protocols are more stable (no count-to-infinity), 
given a reasonable set of defaults generate far more stable networks, and 
definitively know when there is more than one router on a LAN, which can be 
important in subnet distribution. 

My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the field in 
multiple interoperable implementations. 

As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest that folks read 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask themselves why that 
level of interoperability isn't mandatory.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Reply via email to