I agree that RIP does have issues, but in a constrained-number-of-routes scenario (like home networking), it may be "good enough"
That being said, a "subset" implementation of an LS solution that takes into account zeroconf/zeroadmin requirements would certainly be better than anything RIP-like. Maybe this "subset" profile of an LS protocol with zeroconf/zeroadmin requirements should be our focus? I would still like to hear the outcome of any discussions regarding self-organizing routes, which would seem to benefit the zeroconf/zeroadmin goal... Randy On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:15 AM, Tony Li wrote: > > 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 > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
