> Op 19 feb. 2015, om 21:25 heeft Juliusz Chroboczek > <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > >> If people want to choose babel because it works well facing adverse radio >> conditions in a mesh-networking environment (that I know nothing about), > > I think this is misrepresenting the argument somewhat. > > We want a routing protocol that works well in an unadministered network > that consists of a mixture of wired and wireless links. In a previous > mail, I presented a topology that I think is realistic in a Homenet > deployment: > > Internet --- A --- B....C --- is Ethernet > . . ... is WiFi > ........ > > Current implementations of Babel are known to work well in such topologies. > > As far as I am aware, current implementations of IS-IS are not. Getting > IS-IS to work well on such topologies is not completely trivial.
The issue here is link metric feedback into the routing protocol. Can be done for both Babel and ISIS. draft-mrw-homenet-rtg-comparison-01 is correct. With ISIS, I am not aware of any implementation for dynamic link metric feedback. And yes, it must be automatic and link metrics for wireless links are dynamic, even for static nodes. Other objects may move. Teco > > -- Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
