Hi Curtis, The main reason for going forward with IS-IS over OSPFv3 is that there was an open source implementation willing to implement and support all the enhancements necessary for Homenet. Admittedly, the source/destination routing requirement makes the entrance barrier a bit higher for OSPFv3 than other protocols. The reason for this is that it requires the implementation of http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-06.txt in order to support fully extendable LSAs. Hopefully, we can get some implementation momentum for OSPFv3 Extendable LSAs this year. If not soon, I have an idea for a cheaper, yet less elegant approach. Thanks, Acee
On 3/2/15, 7:32 PM, "Curtis Villamizar" <[email protected]> wrote: >In message <[email protected]> >Christian Hopps writes: > >> Hi homenet-wg, >> >> One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used >> (with proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were >> used as the homenet protocol. If true should we be calling this out >> more explicitly in the document? >> >> Thanks, >> Chris. > > >Chris, > >Yes. I agree. > >And OSPF could do the same, without dragging CLNP in with it. > >Maybe ISIS-WG should consider an ISIS-over-IP draft? Oh wait - >non-routability of CLNP is a security feature - so don't forget to >mention that in the security section. You might need providers to use >filters at borders and GTSM as they do for OSPF. > >Curtis > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
