What's the rationale for not subsetting OSPF or IS-IS?
Tony On Oct 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > Hi Tony, > > I agree. I would like to mention that we are specifying an extensible, > flexible (using TLVs) LS protocol in the MANET WG: OLSRv2. I think that we > are not far from submitting it to the IESG. OLSRv2 could well operate on home > devices with limited resources, and does not have the issues of RIP. > > Regards > Ulrich > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Tony Li <[email protected]> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
