I agree with Mark and Fred. Jari
Fred Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > >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 _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
