After much thought, I have settled on the following: Rationale: support for wireless transit links is a distinguishing feature of Homenet, and one that is requested by our users. In the absence of dynamically computed metrics, the routing protocol attempts to minimise the number of links crossed by a route, and therefore prefers long, lossy links to shorter, lossless ones. In wireless networks, "hop-count routing is worst-path routing".
I find the previous version clearer and more informative, but I've read ISO/IEC 10589, and therefore understand that the author of a Standard should aim to sound professional rather than indulging in such amateurish endeavours as being clear or informative. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet