On Nov 22, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Randy Turner wrote: > That's how I felt until incredibly elaborate home net topologies were > suggested -- but it still seems intuitively heavyweight for a "home" network. > If we do end up using OSPF, then maybe home networks are *not* simple as one > would think, but rather a different instantiation of a complex routing > scenario, just with "zeroconf" requirements.
well, halfway in between. If you have a wired LAN and a wireless LAN with two wired/wireless routers, I suspect you have a routing topology with at least one redundant path. I don't care how many nodes you have; if you have a tree, it is "simple" for any protocol. If you have not-all-that-many nodes but have redundancy in the topology, you have the possibility of count-to-infinity problems with a bellman-ford protocol like RIPng. I would suspect that a home network is small compared to, say, a campus in an enterprise network, but if it has redundancy it has at least some probability of the same class of issues. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
