Liubing (Leo) wrote:
Hi all,
We have an ISIS auto-configuration draft under developing in ISIS WG
(draft-liu-isis-auto-conf). Since Homenet/SME networks are one of the main
scenarios our draft targets at, and we already have an OSPF-autoconf mechanism
available (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig), during the isis meeting some
people raised the question whether Homenet WG want to support multiple IGP
auto-configuration mechanisms.
I checked the meeting minutes of the last Homenet meeting. And found the status
of the issue is:
- WG had decided to have both a configuration protocol (HNCP) + a routing
protocol
- WG hasn't decided to have only one routing protocol or two, or even N...
- it seems only one routing protocol has more support
May I ask a couple of questions:
1) Is it necessary to enforce only one routing protocol?
If HNCP is adopted, I guess multiple routing protocols could be easily
supported ?
I think it might be more flexible if homenet router support multiple routing
protocols. Is there any harm?
(Note: supporting multiple routing protocols here doesn't mean they need run at
the same time, just more choices.)
2) If we decide to have only one, then what is the criteria for protocol
selection?
Look forward to your comments. Many thanks.
Best regards,
Bing
I use IS-IS in a provider setting, where it has advantages.
There is already a draft in 6man regarding how to signal SADR routes to
end nodes http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-6man-next-hop-ra-01
I am of the opinion that the need to communicate source address based
routing information to end nodes in Homenet will only increase, or else
it will turn out that there will be many more end nodes that should
actually be mobile Homenet routers e.g. mobile phones with multiple
radios and fixed dock connections. The logical step then from IS-IS
would be that these devices either speak ES-IS or translating metrics
into RA or running IS-IS on end devices.
With that in mind, I think it would be harmful to add a requirement for
Homenet routers (and perhaps many mobile nodes) to speak an OSI protocol.
It's yet another protocol stack, we already have alternatives, and it
isn't widely supported on many operating systems out of the shrink wrap.
--
Regards,
RayH
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
