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