On 8/1/14 4:32 AM, Henning Rogge wrote:
I think Joël's reluctance about hopcount qualifying the gig-e/wifi
choice may change if considering wifi-ac instead. I.e. hopcount may be
good to qualify a choice between Gigabit Ethernet and Gigabit wifi.
Measuring any kind of wifi connection just
On 7/31/14 9:03 PM, Michael Richardson 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
Le 01/08/2014 12:44, Ole Troan a écrit :
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
I think Joël's reluctance about hopcount qualifying the gig-e/wifi
choice may change if considering wifi-ac instead. I.e. hopcount may be
good to qualify a choice between Gigabit Ethernet and Gigabit wifi.
Measuring any kind of wifi connection just with hopcount is not a
good idea. Even
On 8/1/14, 12:47 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
Given the current RIPng standard timers, it could also be argued that
RIPng, as specified, doesn't meet the convergence requirements.
Minimising convergence time should be a goal in any routed
environment.
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
On 7/25/14, 3:31 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
RJ,
If I understand you right, you're pushing for an approach where we don't
say anything about the routing protocol, and wait for the market to
converge on RIPng, thus ensuring interoperability. Please correct me
On 27/07/2014 03:30, Brian Haberman wrote:
...
The goal should be increasing the probability of interoperability
between devices from different vendors.
Exactly, which traditionally means a single mandatory-to-implement
protocol, even if it's the Tossacoin protocol. Whether vendors
take any
On 07/26/2014 04:42 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Tossacoin, i.e. random routing, is of course a valid routing algorithm
in itself. Isn't that the original reason why we had a TTL/hop count? It
would probably work quite well in a small homenet.
I call it hot potato routing, and I define it as
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
RJ,
If I understand you right, you're pushing for an approach where we don't
say anything about the routing protocol, and wait for the market to
converge on RIPng, thus ensuring interoperability. Please correct me if
I've misunderstood you.
(My personal opinion right now (subject to change) is
On 25 Jul 2014, at 15:31 , Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
If I understand you right, you're pushing for an approach where
Not correct. I'm not pushing for anything.
Yours,
Ran
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
On 25 Jul 2014, at 12:52 , Ted Lemon wrote:
So this seems more like an argument ...
Ted,
To be clear, since you seem confused, my comments
were not an argument for or against anything,
just a set of observations.
Cheers,
Ran
___
homenet mailing
On Jul 25, 2014, at 6:09 PM, RJ Atkinson rja.li...@gmail.com wrote:
To be clear, since you seem confused, my comments
were not an argument for or against anything,
just a set of observations.
I don't mean that you intended to argue that way. It's just the conclusion I
drew from the
14 matches
Mail list logo
