Mikael Abrahamsson <mailto:[email protected]>
27 March 2014 07:04
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Ray Hunter wrote:
HNCP as it stands right now has a "routing protocol" of it's own that
is extremely rudimentary, but it gets the job done. I think this is
what is referred to as "zero routing protcol" because people don't
really want to call it a routing protocol (my interpretation).
Right, but the way I see it:
If you have an arbitrary topology then you probably need to carry
metrics to prefer one link type over another.
If you want to be able to determine which prefixes to delete from the
FIB and RA when a particular upstream provider link goes down, you
probably need some sort of tagging.
If you want fast convergence around failures you probably need a decent
path discovery algorithm.
If you want to differentiate between a temporary change (due to an
incident or link failure) and a longer term permanent change (due to
replugging or device insertion or removal) then you probably need two
different sets of timers and problem diagnostics.
In other words; we definitely need a routing protocol, and probably a
configuration protocol too.
So isn't the danger than HNCP starts off being very simple, and ends up
duplicating a lot of previous work and experience?
I'm interested to hear the contrarian view.
--
Regards,
RayH
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
