On 16.11.2014 18:40, Pierre Pfister wrote:
Proposal #1 defines a new bit in the existing Assigned Prefix TLV, asking neighboring nodes to inject the prefix in the routing protocol. We could find other-but-similar ways to do it of course. Define a dedicated TLV for instance. But I think this proposal is sufficient for the intended purpose.
As its specced very vaguely some comments here based on the PDF and the various comments I found in the threads.
Simply creating default routes for IPv4 or IPv6 without checking whether you actually have such default routes in your homenet is a particularly bad idea. Similarly silently converting source-restricted to non-restricted routes is also not very clean and would probably break any possible mif efforts.
The designated router might be a bad choice as next hop if it lies on a path that doesn't have any uplink or the uplink with non-matching source-restrictions.
Also you need to revise your designated router election so that a leafy-router can never become the designated router. Depending on how you want to detect either one you probably need some sort of flag-TLV stating "I'm regular homenet router" - "I'm leafy homenet router" - "I'm no router at all". In general you should think about whether flagging individual APs makes sense or if there is any case where you potentially want flagged and non-flagged APs, if not then generic "I'm leafy router" is probably a better idea.
Also creating this class of "leaf routers" could be problematic. At least it must be made very clear that these are NOT homenet-routers. Otherwise you end up having different "types" of homenet routers and you have one "type" that actually has worse properties than hierarchical PD, i.e. it cannot even work with other routers of the same "type" to form a tree topology.
Also do we potentially want these "leafy routers" to inject DPs into the homenet?
Cheers, Steven _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
