Markus Stenberg wrote:
On 29.7.2015, at 17.35, STARK, BARBARA H<bs7...@att.com>  wrote:
Perfect! Thanks. I'd missed that. Yes, that's exactly what I was looking for.



So when the Design Team compares IS-IS to Babel, they really should be 
comparinghttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lamparter-homenet-isis-profile-00 to 
RFC6126+RFC7557+draft-boutier-babel-source-specific-01.
Well said.


Any other IS-IS comparison would involve a hypothetical IS-IS. Since a 
hypothetical IS-IS, by definition, does not exist, a hypothetical IS-IS would 
fail thecriterion that requires examination only of existing IGPs.

First of all, thanks from me to David L. as well for the document; I love 
having it around.

I think the metric stuff is missing from that at least (although they are 
'wide' which helps I guess to express 10 better); so we're dealing with fixed 
default metric IS-IS configuration here.
Yes, but it's still not nailed down. The architecture requires support for "heterogeneous link layers". IMHO That means metrics have to take into account link type, if not measured reliability. Pure hop count won't cut it for Homenet. And default metrics on most IS IS implementations I know default to hop count behaviour (metric of 10 per interface crossed).

It seems to be also missing security.
Yes.
And to echo Barbara, if that is not the plan, now would be good time to update 
the document.
+1
Cheers,

-Markus

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Reply via email to