Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: >> This included technical discussion around a partially unanticipated >> requirement for HNCP to support a stub network with a gateway that >> doesn't have sufficient resources to run a routing protocol.
> Mark,
> Could you please spell out the requirements for a stub-only
> implementation? Do you expect the stub router to hold the full routing
> table, or just two routes (connected network and default route)?
Just two, I think.
(I think in the case of NEST that James spoke about, that it has a third
route via a tunnel to a walled garden in the cloud, but that's not our problem)
> Is there interest in a stub-only implementation of Babel? Should it be
> a standalone daemon, or should it be integrated in the HNCP daemon?
I think the most interesting thing would be reference code which implements
stub-only babel; does it even need to listen? I think it would be clearer
as example code if it was not integrated, but in real life, I'd want it
integrated.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
pgp32XM4cgf1Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
