I agree. Also, since we already have to bootstrap an auto-configuring routing protocol, why not leverage this work to distribute other information? Acee
On Feb 2, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > And what happens when the routing protocol finds out that, even though the > delegation protocol thinks everything is OK and addresses were delegated just > fine, the network is now partitioned? How do you reassign addresses in that > case? I fail to see how this particular functionality requires merging the two protocols. If a link is partitioned, you need to time-out the address assignments made by the now unreachable router. Whether they are timed out by the routing protocol or by a separate configuration protocol is pretty much an implementation detail, isn't it? The routing protocol knows that the network is partitioned because that's what it does. How is the configuration distribution protocol going to know that? Either you couple it to the routing protocol, or you have it poll to see if things have changed (inefficient and/or slow to notice changes). Why would you do the latter?
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
