Re: [v6ops] draft-wbeebee-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis - where to go from here

[Thomas Herbst <[e-mail]>]

In the CPE subgroup discussion in Beijing I'd proposed a default of RIPng
on. 
 
Ole preferred OSPF with all area 0.

If we could pick one, I wouldn't really care which one it was.
Picking at random would be more expedient than our normal process.


tom

On 3/2/11 8:27 AM, "Joel Jaeggli" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>buffalo aps that I was using a couple of years ago came with rip enabled
>by default. That was to support the extension of the network using their
>bridges or mesh APs. similarly I've seen OLSR deployed in a similar
>fashion in both cases it was meant to be done without user intervention.
>
>When two devices are plugged together today they form an l2 adjacency,
>why not an l3 one?
>
>joel
>
>On 3/2/11 8:14 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>> 
>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 7:57 AM, james woodyatt wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 1, 2011, at 7:42 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>>>> On Mar 1, 2011, at 4:45 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Understood.  Do any of those organizations have a recommendation for
>>>>>a suitable interior routing protocol for residential IPv6 networks?
>>>>>I'm pretty sure IETF doesn't have one to recommend right now, and I'm
>>>>>pessimistic that it will have one by next year to satisfy the plans
>>>>>of the Smart Energy community.
>>>>
>>>> Well, one could discuss ZOSPF, or OSPFv3 with a default
>>>>configuration, or RIPng, or IS-IS with a default configuration. Why
>>>>would, picking one at random, RIPng be inappropriate?
>>>
>>> Unacceptable human interface burden, for starters.  Beyond that, I
>>>have no technical contributions I can make here.
>> 
>> I dunno. On my Linksys router (which I don't use anymore, but there is
>>one here at the house), there is a radio button that says "on" or "off"
>>for RIP. If OSPF comes with a default configuration such as described in
>>the MIB document, it can do the same; at the job I had before coming to
>>Cisco (ACC), our configuration design required that when you turned a
>>feature on it had to be operational, and from there configuration
>>commands would change it, and so "SET OSPF ON" (ACC's equivalent of that
>>radio button) had to result in a usable configuration. It worked quite
>>well, actually. I don't see a radio button as "unacceptable UI burden";
>>a lot of people seem to be able to handle it.
>> 
>> I would agree if we were asking people to navigate IOS CLI. That's a
>>punishment, not a UI :-)
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops