On 8/1/14, 2:10 AM, "Markus Stenberg" <markus.stenb...@iki.fi> wrote:
>On 1.8.2014, at 4.03, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: >> Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: >>> It seems to me that you are grasping for a use case to justify a split >>> where none is needed. Protocols like OSPF, IS-IS and Babel would all >>> work in both environments. RIP won't. So this seems more like an >>> argument not to use RIP than an argument to have two different homenet >>> router profiles. >> For the record, can you expound on the technical reason why RIP(v2) >>won't >> work? (I'm not a fan of it, but last time I used it was on SunOS 3 or >> something) > >RIPng (RFC2080) isn¹t source specific, I¹m not sure if there¹s something >more recent on RIP front that is (and is widely implemented available). >Obviously, extending RIPng to be source specific would not be hard, but >then it wouldn¹t be RIP anymore by strict definition (no existing >implementations). Given the current RIPng standard timers, it could also be argued that RIPng, as specified, doesn¹t meet the convergence requirements. Here is an excerpt from section 3.5.1 of "IPv6 Home Networking Architecture Principles²: Minimising convergence time should be a goal in any routed environment. It is reasonable to assume that convergence time should not be significantly longer than network outages users are accustomed to should their CER reboot. There is the imperfect solutions to the ³counting to infinity² problem in Ring. Thanks, Acee > >Cheers, > >-Markus > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >homenet@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
