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

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

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 :-)