On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Gert Doering wrote:
What is it that Babel does *not* do that ISIS does (and that is relevant for a homenet scenario)?
This has been stated and dismissed multiple times because of differing opinions how important these things are.
For instance, babel does not have an IETF working group. Babel does not have a testing suite (as far as I know) to test new implementations against how things "should" be. Babel doesn't provide topology. Babel doesn't have 10+ independent implementations of the protocol that has been shown to interoperate. Babel is an experimental RFC protocol.
None of this is a hard requirement according to the homenet architecture document. Neither is some other things that proponents of babel bring forth is really important and unique selling point for babel.
We don't have agreement on what homenet should be, what it looks like, what the requirements are, how it's implemented, and what's important over time. That's why we can't come to agreement on what routing protocol to choose.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
