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
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
