On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Ted Lemon wrote:
Regarding your criticism about people pitching their favorite routing
protocols, you seem to be doing precisely that, so the criticism seems a
I never said I wasn't. People usually have favorites, I am not excluded.
bit unfair. The responses you have been hearing seem like legitimate
attempts to address points you have raised on a technical level, not
mere advocacy, and it is unfortunate that you would suggest otherwise: I
haven't actually seen you raise any technical points in favor of IS-IS,
which you seem to be advocating.
It wasn't my intention to imply that people didn't have technical reasons
to suggest what they do. I have reasons to suggest what I do. They have
theirs.
If people want to choose babel because it works well facing adverse radio
conditions in a mesh-networking environment (that I know nothing about), I
however have to question if this is relevant to the discussion we're
having here. Is that really a requirement for a homenet routing protocol?
If 802.11 is so bad for multicast, do we even want to run IPv6 over it?
I know Dave T is trying to enlighten IEEE about these issues, which is
great. Do we presume he (and others) succeed in getting 802.11 fixed, or
do we choose routing protocol based on current 802.11 behavior?
Or do we say we want to avoid multicast altogether in homenet, and include
an architecture where the ingress homenet router converts multicast TV
streams to unicast within the home? That would solve some issues...
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
