On Nov 22, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Howard, Lee wrote: > Ray asked for people to post drafts for anything other than OSPF, because > without an alternative, it will appear that we have consensus on OSPF. I > haven't posted a draft on RIPng, because it would just work the way it's > designed.
Makes sense to me. > A few people said http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-up-pio-00 is no > better than RIP, and we already have RIP in home gateways. Can any gateway > vendor confirm whether RIPng is already in gateways? > > Proposed alternatives are: > * OSPFv3. It's heavyweight for home routing. We still need a way to find > the border and inject default. It could be used for DHCP-PD. > * zOSPF. It requires resurrecting work. I don't how much work it needs, or > how big the protocol is. The Internet Draft could be summarized as "Use OSPF, and <do this> for subnet allocation". If you don't like OSPF, you don't like zOSPF. > * UP PIO. It's new work, and requires work. It's lightweight, and solves > the border problem, but not addressing. > * RIPng. It's fairly lightweight, and it exists. It solves only the routing > problem. To my way of thinking, as a default protocol for very small networks, you could do worse. I personally prefer OSPF, but I'm a snob :-) > * MANEMO. It requires resurrecting work, is pretty lightweight, and solves > addressing and border problems. > > If you argue that we should reuse existing protocols (per the architecture > draft), your choices are OSPFv3 or RIPng. I really don't like OSPFv3 in the > home--it's too much protocol, though if someone can tell me about memory > footprint, that would be helpful. If you're comparing to RIPng, "a lot more". It's a more complex program, and it not only stores a route table, it stores a link state database. I'd have to go look at something to say this definitively, but I've heard the phrase "order of magnitude" in discussions like these. > I also prefer draft-baker-homenet-prefix-assignment, so we don't need OSPF > for addressing. > Any discussion? > > Lee > > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable > proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to > copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for > the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not > the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the > contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be > unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail > and any printout. > _______________________________________________ > 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
