Hi,
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 08:53:48AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> Well, I am still of the opinion that ISIS would work well without
> modifications for Wifi that works as intended. It's also been that when I
> have questioned why people would have crappy wifi (which is seems to be
> one of babels major design goals to handle), I have been told I am being
> silly and that's not what's being said. It's been quite confusing.
You *are* being silly, because Babels design goal is not "handle crappy
wifi well" but "handle *all* potential network topologies a homenet might
encounter well, including crappy wifi". Which means it will totally work
well if you do *not* have a crappy wifi link around.
[..]
> Babel does some of what ISIS does. ISIS does some of what babel does.
What is it that Babel does *not* do that ISIS does (and that is relevant
for a homenet scenario)? It perfectly well works on wired links.
It might not work on an ISP backbone, and it does not do L2 (TRILL), and
it does not do multi-topology, and it does not run over OSI protocol - but
which of that is relevant for the homenet scenario?
Nobody is doubting that ISIS is the more versatile protocol, has a more
active working group, many more RFCs to document it, and so on - but
what of this is *relevant* here?
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
