On Jul 28, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Thomas Clausen <i...@thomasclausen.org> wrote: > 4/ I am not so sure that HOMENET (or the IETF) wins by staging a > beauty contest among routing protocols, to “pick the most > beautiful”, > and then mandate that as: > > “THE ONE TRUE HOMENET ROUTING PROTOCOL”. > > It seems that the collateral damage from this is non-trivial, > in terms of > time expanded on precisely not getting anywhere on this issue, > arguing > instead of progressing.
Some routing protocol has to be MTI, or else you get boxes from different vendors that, when plugged together, fail to interoperate. If it were not for this unfortunate truth, we could indeed simply blow off the question of choosing an MTI protocol for the homenet. As to Richard’s point about LLNs, Pascal brought up ROLL as a possibility for the homenet and it was considered by the design team, which did not conclude that it was a viable alternative. This didn’t come up in the discussion, so I don’t know why they didn’t, but it isn’t the cast that it wasn’t considered. And as for why LLNs need to be stub networks, it’s so that we don’t accidentally try to use them as transit networks, not because they are second-class citizens or not considered important by homenet. I certainly consider them quite important, and do not want my LLN devices’ batteries run down providing transit for Netflix.
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
