Hey Acee, On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
> Hey JP, > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 10:01 AM, JP Vasseur wrote: > >> >> On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Fred Baker 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. >> >> I spent enough years on OSPF and ISIS to agree with you that these protocols >> are well proven, widely deployed with the number of >> recent improvements (MTR, fast convergence, …) to name a few are >> particularly appealing. But before choosing a routing protocol >> the first step consists of listing the requirements. In LLN, as you rightly >> pointed out, "smart objects" have a set of constraints in terms >> of resources … far from where we are on traditional routers … Thus I would >> strongly encourage to list the set of requirements for this >> type of devices before making any sort of selection on the routing protocol >> of choice, taking into account where we will be in a few years >> when the number of these objects will not be limited to a few dozens, the >> LSDB *will* grow … > > I think a viable option for 2012 is that if the LLN networks with their smart > objects have to connect to the traditional HOMENET fixed and wireless > networks, they will need to do so through a border router supporting both > environments. IMHO, we don't need one protocol that meets all requirements > for every possible device in the home. > 100% agreeing with you !! This is why I was limiting my comments to "constrained objects" - Very much in line with you. Cheers. JP. > Thanks, > Acee > > > >> >>> >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
