Removed Alia from CC, I think she's on the list. > We manage to disagree on definitions? There's multipath and there's load > balancing. Multipath is a topological thing, load balancing is one thing > you can do with that topology. Maybe we disagree on definition because > you are grouping the two together?
Yes, that's right. I'm pretty sure that Alia meant "ECMP load sharing" when she wrote "ECMP" in her initial mail. This would appear to be consistent with Cisco usage. Merely keeping a redundant routing table is called "feasible successors" in the Cisco litterature, and "redundant feasible routes" in Babel. I suggest that we avoid calling this multipath, in order to avoid confusion with ECMP and MP-TCP. > Unless I really missed something, RPL and BABEL have the same > feasibility condition, which your Babel RFC explains extremely well, and > that inherits from a long line of successful DV protocols such as EIGRP, > and can be traced back to JJ's DUAL work. Agreed, but I don't think that's what Alia was speaking about. > The thing BABEL appears to be missing is this [...] Right in both cases. Babel's starvation avoidance and RPL's greediness (how come both are food metaphors? because we both live in France?) represent different tradeoffs, which reflects the different design criteria of the protocols -- Babel tries to be safe, L2-agnostic and easy to implement, while RPL is very serious about low power and extremely low resources, at the cost of unsafe tweaks and vastly increased implementation complexity. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
