On 17.11.2014, at 10.32, Steven Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > Also do we potentially want these “leafy routers" to inject DPs into the > homenet?
At least in the Nest use case, apparently yes (but not one with default route).. The more I read this thread, the more I think I should emphatize that when measuring run-time memory/traffic (=~ power consumption), given non-static network, HNCP =~ random link state routing protocol > (some) distance-vector routing protocols. Even if HNCP has some optimizations for traffic (mostly in the static network case), the memory footprint is still similar - O(# of total TLVs). Given that, you do NOT want to stick full implementation of that in a ’small’ device anyway, but instead have some sort of pub-sub ’sleep proxy’ or equivalent that requires small device to consume resources only to deal with things it cares about. Not the whole network state. So, counter-proposal: - HNCP + RP (TBD) for full router nodes - HNCP-client (of some kind; basically TLV pub-sub with closest router(s) with full database) + RP (if small enough, see above) for small nodes; if the chosen RP does not fit the ‘small model’, then the extra hackery of routes and whatever tied to the HNCP-client connection lifetime or something may be needed Case 1: DP provided by the ’small node’ Notably, the ’small’ node in this case _could_ provide e.g. DPs, and it’s own assignments there, but as it would not probably want to be running real PA algorithm either (due to power/memory consumption needs), it would have to provide the DP and it’s own assignments ‘as is’ (=higher priority than the dynamic choices). Case 2: ’small node’ using home network Probably simplest option here would be to have the ‘small node’ just run DHCPv6 PD(/DHCP) to get network access, and use static routes :-p Case 3: (case 1+ case 2) I do not think they are mutually exclusive so e.g. Nest’s ‘use home network to get connectivity, provide tunnel to own ULA to rest of home network’ should just work. And with this model, with much smaller footprint. Finally, though.. Do we really want to account for this case? E.g. LLN networks usually have some beefy gateway that can talk number of protocols (and therefore has plenty of resources). Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
