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

Reply via email to