Hi, " I don't think my wife would want a lossy network in our house ;^)" :
Nobody wants a lossy network, but the technology you are using may create lossy links... I may have miss something in the Homenet scope. In the scope of Homenet, is every device in the house runing over a *robust* link (Bit Error Rate below 1 % at the PHY level) ? Furthermore do these devices could have some high Power/Computation/Size/Cost constraints ? I fail to see the kind of technologies and devices that are targeting. Thanks for the clarification. Cédric . -----Message d'origine----- De : Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lin...@ericsson.com] Envoyé : jeudi 29 septembre 2011 16:44 À : Fred Baker Cc : Mark Townsley; C Chauvenet; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); MANET IETF; homenet@ietf.org; rt...@ietf.org Objet : Re: [homenet] Question for you I'm in complete agreement with Fred. The areas where the existing link-state protocols may need to be extended are auto-configuration and, potentially, inter-area policies. I don't think my wife would want a lossy network in our house ;^) Thanks, Acee On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mark Townsley wrote: > >> Since you asked, *I* think that a homenet has functional overlap (what I >> called "at least a smaller and slightly different subset" in my email) in >> terms of requirements to LLNs. At first blush, it looks like RPL has lots of >> functionality - perhaps more than we really need for homenet, and by your >> own admission more than you need for LLN's - but will hold reservation on >> what I think best fits the bill until we see Fred's analysis, hear from >> others, etc. > > My two yen, which may be all it's worth... > > If I were a Linksys/D-Link/NetGear/* product manager asking about what > protocols to put in, I wouldn't be asking about what still exists in Internet > Drafts and is thought by the engineers designing it to be better than sliced > bread, but about what was inexpensive to implement, likely to be close to > bug-free, and definitively accomplished the goal. I note that most routers > for the IPv4 residential routing marketplace implement RIPv2; I know of one > that implements no routing protocol, one that implements RIPv2 and RIPv1 (!), > and one that implements RIPv2 and OSPF (don't ask which they are, I don't > remember). This is from a google search of residential routers a few months > ago and covered perhaps 20 products from half as many vendors. So my first > inclination is to say that for a residential IPv6 network, RIPng is probably > an image match for those vendors. > > I have a personal bias in the direction of OSPF or IS-IS; I think that once > the code is debugged, SPF-based protocols are more stable (no > count-to-infinity), given a reasonable set of defaults generate far more > stable networks, and definitively know when there is more than one router on > a LAN, which can be important in subnet distribution. > > My first choice would NOT be something that isn't proven in the field in > multiple interoperable implementations. > > As a person thinking about making a recommendation, I'd suggest that folks > read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.1.2 and ask themselves why > that level of interoperability isn't mandatory. > _______________________________________________ > 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
