+1 I can see reasons for having shared sub-layer for routing protocol and prefix distribution protocol. As example, in MANET we have such already: RFC 5444 and 5498. If we define a set of TLVs for border router information and prefix distribution, it can run on whatever routing protocol. Don't forget BGP.
For Homenet plug&play, I don't suggest to let configure grandma her favorite IGP ;) Teco Op 31 jan. 2014, om 09:37 heeft Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > >> If the routing protocol and the prefix distribution protocol are separate, >> then they can end up with different ideas on what prefix is on a given link. >> That will lead to blackholing. > > I don't agree. > > I think a valid approach is to have a separate protocol set the address on an > interface which is then picked up by the routing protocol and redistributed > just like if it was manually configured. > > Routing protocol deamons normally don't set interface IP addresses, they > carry de-facto information they get from other places and the only thing they > update is the RIB/FIB in the machine. > > So to continue this, even carrying service discovery information leads to new > information flow in that the routing protocol now needs to update a service > discovery "Information Base". At least this is less intrusive than having it > set interface IP addresses. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
