> This whole thread is really patronizing.
The email wasn't intended to be, honest. I was trying to be helpful. And as I
said ignore my email if you wish to.
Dino
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
On Jul 25, 2015, at 8:56 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> One comment that ISIS does not need an IP address to work is not very
> important for IPv6. An IPv6 node creates its link-local address and thus
> has an IPv6 address, by default. The link local address can be used in by
> any rout
Ted,
Thanks for the clarifying two emails. I agree, a home router protocol should
include good quality open-software. Let’s have hackthons at each IETF for a
few future ones and get open-source ISIS up to deployable quality if anyone
would like to use it.
One comment that ISIS does not need
On Jul 25, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Even the switching networks use ISIS because TRILL (rfc6325) uses ISIS
> beneath the covers. At least three switch chip vendors support TRILL and
> thus ISIS.
Homenet is chartered to produce a suite of specifications that will allo
On Jul 25, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> Correction. It took about 2 years to get it right and 18 years of usage and
> new features additions (like IPv6 about 15 years ago). But most features the
> homenet use-case may not need to use.
This whole thread is really patronizing. Sor
-Original Message-
From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 3:39 PM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: HOMENET; Gert Doering; Terry Manderson
Subject: Re: [homenet] Moving forward.
>And that will tell us exactly what about the newly wr
100% agree with Dino - nothing beats extensive use in real networks and
consecutive bug fixing.
at least you could skip teething...
Regards,
Jeff
On Jul 25, 2015, at 7:10 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> Someone needs to put the foot down and choose. Either you choose IETF
>> process as a tie-bre
> What it *does* tell us is that ISIS is a mightily complex protocol that
> took 20+ years to get right for the *best* minds in the routing industry.
Correction. It took about 2 years to get it right and 18 years of usage and new
features additions (like IPv6 about 15 years ago). But most feature
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 03:21:18PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> I have no knowledge that it won't, on the other hand I have more knowledge
> about interoperating ISIS implementations and its 20+ years of exposure to
> reality.
And that will tell us exactly what about the newly written
> Someone needs to put the foot down and choose. Either you choose IETF process
> as a tie-breaker, in which case ISIS is the obvious choice, or you choose
> some other tie-breaker and then it might be another choice or no choice.
Then I’ll be the foot if anyone cares. My 2 cents. You can ignore
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Perhaps we could stop caricaturing each other's positions? I'm sure
we'll enjoy each other's company much more that way.
I didn't know that was I was doing. I was merely stating the most commonly
reason I have heard for why babel should be chose
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015, Gert Doering wrote:
What's wrong with picking a routing protocol that will handle both
unreliable homenet links *and* a perfectly stable topology, in
preference to a protocol that you seem to imply wants a "stable
environment"?
Because there are other factors as well, no
Hi,
> What's wrong with picking a routing protocol that will handle both
> unreliable homenet links *and* a perfectly stable topology, in preference
> to a protocol that you seem to imply wants a "stable environment"?
>
> Babels will work perfectly well on a totally loss-free wired topology.
+1
Hi Mark,
I'm not sure which hat you are wearing here - so I will presume none.
On 25/07/2015 5:40 am, "Mark Townsley" wrote:
>
>Thank you Terry, Russ, et. al., for agreeing to continue to work on this
>with closer participation from folks involved closely in Homenet since
>day one by including
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:06:14PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> I doubt we'll get consensus on the requirements for the routing protocol,
> as the babel proponents seem to envision a homenet with really bad wifi
> which needs a protocol such as babel to handle this problem, and others,
> One group sees the homenet consisting of a bunch of "ad-hoc" wifi links
> with dubious quality and working part of the time,
Mikael,
Perhaps we could stop caricaturing each other's positions? I'm sure we'll
enjoy each other's company much more that way.
I'm not going to repeat my explanation
16 matches
Mail list logo
