Hi, Op 1 jun. 2014, om 12:50 heeft Gert Doering <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 10:47:03AM +0200, Pierre Pfister wrote: >> So even if most will agree that supporting multiple routing protocol is a >> madness in the general case. >> It?s not that hard to ?support it? while requiring one single routing >> protocol as mandatory in home networks. >> And whenever we want to move to another protocol, maybe in 20 years, it will >> allow transitioning softly. > > Having multiple routing protocols and select between them is already > permitted by the current HNCP draft (for example). > > The question was more whether "add ISIS today" would bring a benefit to > homenet, and I still maintain "no" - to the contrary, it is harmful - as > you said, we can be happy if CPE vendors get one protocol right. +1 I personally don't really care about which protocol that should be (I have some preferences, but "getting one protocol right" outweighs all those preferences by a huge margin) as long as we design something that is easy enough for CPE vendors to implement correctly so that for the home user everything just works. Needing to implement multiple protocols, having to negotiate with other devices which of those protocols to use, network flaps because a device was added to the network that doesn't support the protocol that the other devices agreed upon etc. don't help in this regard. Please remember: the end goal is to create a situation for home users that just works and works reliably, not to design the most fancy and cool combination of protocols possible... Cheers, Sander _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
