On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Steven Barth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Are there any other comments in either the positive or negative >> direction? Please WG, speak up. >> > Please take into consideration that the intended solution is aimed at > relatively low-cost mass-produced devices not big industry routers that > come with expensive support contracts, i.e. the specifications should be > relatively simple and clear so it can be implemented in a reasonable > timeframe by people not knowing the protocol. > > Similarly these boxes are mostly unadministered and the overall complexity > added by the protocol should reflect in the added benefit. What I mean is, > if the outcome was a protocol that requires compliance with 100 pages of > specification then it should have a very sophisticated mechanism to find > the best path without an administrator telling it which hops are > preferrable. > I certainly hear and understand that these are important requirements. It is reasonable to consider that a homenet profile of the selected routing protocol may be appropriate to limit the extensions and functionality that is needed. Protocols that have been successful and around a long time do tend to accumulate lots of extensions. Frankly, I learned ISIS from a book rather than reading RFCs. Alia > > Thanks, > > Steven > > > >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
