Teco Boot <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I can see reasons for having shared sub-layer for routing protocol and prefix distribution protocol. As example, in MANET we have such already: RFC 5444 and 5498. If we define a set of TLVs for border router information and prefix distribution, it can run on whatever routing protocol. Don't forget BGP. >>> >>> For Homenet plug&play, I don't suggest to let configure grandma her favorite IGP ;) >> >> doesn't that mean we have to pick one?
> At least one, for Homenet. Could be OSPF for high speed links, RPL for
> LLN, or OLSRv2 for mix of wireless and wired links including ad hoc
> radio links.
Lest people worry about who is going to configure all of this, I want to
point out that actually each of these protocols run in networks different
security profiles.
That is, the set of links running OSPF in Homenet are mostly equivalent
security/trust-wise (taking into account that Fred and his wife will have
tweaked things to live with their seperate corporate policies).
The links running RPL are part of the Home *Automation* Network, and
depending upon who is doing things, may be less or more trusted than the OSPF
parts (probably, also depending upon your point of view). There will be
routers/firewalls that speak Homenet/OSPF on one side and RPL on the other.
Ditto for the OLSRv2/AODV/Babel adhoc running links: they are essentially
alternative "uplinks", which from the Homenet point of view are weird
wall-free walled gardens. (Hanging gardens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging_Gardens_of_Babylon note tower of babeld
in the background)
====
I've asked that we come to some decision about how we are going to make the
protocol decision. It's been dragging on for over a year now.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
pgpmJ4nm87P4A.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
