On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:15:03PM -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > I don't think it is likely to be a lot of work, though, compared to the > effort to standardize Babel which would include:
[mostly things that involve an exhausting amount of talking, but do not require the invention of new technology] > Personally, I think that Babel is an interesting Routing Protocol with > substantially different applicability than IS-IS, OSPF or BGP, and it > might be good to standardize it, whether Homenet adopts it or not. > However, I think that the time to do that would be a serious problem for > Homenet because of the time pressure to finalize a standard for Homenet. If there were running code that could make IS-IS function as well as babel does with respect to dynamically computed metrics, and on wireless networks of varying quality and shifting topology, then IS-IS would win on the basis of expediency. If there were a solid specification and second implementation of babel, babel would win on the basis of functionality. Until one of those things exists, we're doomed to continue having an argument about which values we prefer to compromise. For myself, I *like* expediency, but I think functionality has to take priority: radio spectrum isn't going to get less crowded, and topology isn't going to get simpler. So I suggest getting started on *both* endeavors, and let homenet settle on whichever one makes progress first. If you're correct that IS-IS's problems are straightforward to solve, that's great. If not, it's better if we have a plan B already in progress. Can we take the first steps toward standardization even if homenet *hasn't* declared a preference yet? -- Evan Hunt -- [email protected] Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
