Hi, On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 06:33:45PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2014, Gert Doering wrote: > > > So I'd keep the list of supported protocols as small as possible - and > > stick to IP protocols. ISIS is great for ISP environments, but does not > > nicely adapt to a unix environment where the kernel has no idea about > > ISO/OSI protocols and you have to do everything via raw sockets. Which > > would be a fairly typical environment for a CPE router. > > This is actually a feature, the fact that ISIS doesn't require IPv6 to be > up and running before it can get itself started and you know the topology > of the home.
Uh, what? So the benefit of ISIS (over ISO/OSI transport) in the home would
be "you can have IPv4 in your homenet, without having IPv6"? I truly can't
see a reason why this would be useful in the time frame when this would be
ready - and it's also out of scope of what the homenet architecture concerns
itself with. Which, as far as I understand, is "make IPv6 work right, and
do not damage IPv4", while excluding IPv4-only scenarios.
> How one values this feature is obviously up to each individual.
>
> Oh, and the other email you sent. Irony doesn't help make your point. That
> email was quite confusing about what point you were actually trying to
> make.
Then it was quite clear: I can't see a point in doing protocol work to
solve something in a fashion that would be very very very similar to an
already-existing protocol that has mature implementations.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
pgphuMdkHKX1t.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
