Hi Tim, > Just as a reminder, here is what we converged on at IETF89 for text in the > homenet arch. The “zero or one” protocol message was clear. I don’t recall a > clear answer on whether to pass config info via the routing protocol or a > separate protocol, but as HNCP shapes up as a proposal I suspect the > tradeoffs will become clearer towards an answer there. > > "At most one routing protocol should be in use at a given time in a > given homenet. In some simple topologies, no routing protocol may be > needed. If more than one routing protocol is supported by routers in > a given homenet, then a mechanism is required to ensure that all > routers in that homenet use the same protocol."
Sounds good, and I see the need for having the possibility to introduce a new routing protocol in the future so that we can evolve if/when necessary. However, having multiple routing protocols will be disruptive in some ways. When a homenet consists of devices that all support the new protocol then connecting an older device that doesn't support it will force the whole network to switch to the old protocol. While this may be unavoidable when designing HomenetNG, it is not something we should be causing today. Cheers, Sander _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
