The problem with a RIP like protocol is that it will have RIP like convergence properties. IMHO, that's no longer acceptable.
Doing a subset of a LS protocol with a trivial default configuration should not be unreasonable. Tony On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Randy Turner wrote: > > I would hope that we would NOT be seriously considering OSPF or IS-IS in the > home...this seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. How many routes > are we talking about for a home network? I don't believe any enterprise > routing protocol was designed for a "zeroconf" or "zeroadmin" type of > environment. Our customers won't even know what an IP address is. > > Seems like a "RIP-like" (around the same scope of complexity) would be enough > for a homenet. I'm curious to see what comes out of the LLN discussion. > > The "filter" for any of these decisions should probably always be a > "zeroconf" or "zeroadmin" scenario -- if a proposed approach to a problem > can't exist in a "zeroconf/admin" environment, then I would think it would > not be the right choice. Also, as a "first cut" solution, we I think we > should be focused on the 80% use-case, not the fringe. The participants of > this working group, and their respective home networking setups, are probably > not our "typical" customer. > > Randy > > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Qiong wrote: > >> Hi, Acee, >> >> Agree. I think the HOMENET requirements should be derived from major devices >> in the home network scenario. Maybe currently we should firstly focus on >> multiple router scenario for traditional fixed and wireless network for >> multiple services (especially WiFi) , and then introduce LLN network as well >> for smart objects in the same environment, together with the homenet >> architecture and new model in the future. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Qiong >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
