On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
I will yield that babel is better in a mesh network where all bets are off
Mikael, I have repeatedly asked you to stop caricaturing our position.
Lossy links exist, and while we expect a home network to have a stable
backbone, topologies such as the one that I described in Section 7 of
draft-mrw-homenet-rtg-comparison-02 are likely to occcur naturally, and
such topologies are not handled adequately by the implementations of IS-IS
that I have had a chance to inspect.
If you disagree with this position on technical grounds, please argue using
technical arguments. Repeating the same strawman over and over again just
makes you sound like a paid propagandist.
So I have now re-read that text. There is work ongoing for the ISIS
implementation to talk to the wireless layer and include quality
measurements, and I have just taken for granted that the implementation
will have speed related metrics.
So yes, I agree with the text in there, it's just doesnt reflect current
state of affairs anymore.
So let me bring up another point, which struck me when I read "works well
in babel". Our ISIS implementation is tested against a commercial grade
test suite with 1000+ test cases to check that the implementation does
what it should. How will future implementors of babel test their
implementations against what's in the standards?
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
