Speaking as an interested observer only... On 1/31/14 3:57 AM, Teco Boot wrote: > +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. >
Yes, let's not forget BGP (but probably not for the reasons Teco mentions it). Many folks have expressed regrets over the years with the amount of extra baggage that has been added to BGP. Most of the time, the argument for adding this non-routing stuff is that the distribution model is the same. The results have been less than stellar, IMO. However, we have to consider that the rate of information update for reachability is not the same as the update rate for prefix delegation. Will the transport of that extra information lead to performance issues, incompatibility with other devices speaking the same protocol, or concerns over the security model needed for these two different functions? Just food for thought. Regards, Brian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
