On Aug 11, 2015, at 7:25 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > It sounds to me like using multiple paths (ECMP or otherwise) is something > that hasn't been clearly nailed down in the requirements?
Putting ECMP in the requirements seems like a terrible idea. I don’t think there’s a need for it, for two reasons. First, none of the applications you described actually require it. Yes, you’d get better performance if they had it, so it would be a nice value-added feature. But it is not a base requirement for the homenet to function. Second, did you read my description of the typical homenet user’s mental model of what a homenet looks like a week ago? I think this is a key point: the end user has no idea what ECMP is, what its operational characteristics are, what links it might function over, etc. So ECMP would have to self-configure, and that includes the sort of stuff Juliusz was talking about—noticing interfering versus non-interfering paths, etc. This is a research project. I think it would be great if homenet could do this work at some point in the future, but it is not something that should be part of the base requirements for the homenet, because if it were, it would delay availability of a complete homenet spec by years. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
