As I understand it, it is not the idea of Proposal #1 to have a "leafy router", whatever that means.
The idea is that one (or more) of the battery-operated, low-power "routers" on a low-power internally-routed network (like SEP nodes running RPL, or Nest nodes), would choose a homenet router to proxy for the low-power network. The homenet router (not some "leafy router", just a regular homenet router) would inject routes for the low-power network, would serve as the default up-link router for that network, and would route packets destined for the prefixes on the lower-power link down into the low-power network. None of the low-power nodes would run the homenet routing protocol. This is not unchartered territory, as routers running OSPF would often do this sort of thing for networks running RIP, back in the day, and BGP routers still do this for networks running OSPF or IS-IS. In cases where a low-power network has a gateway that _is_ capable of participating in the homenet routing protocol (whether it is IS-IS, Babel or something else), that gateway will just be a normal homenet router and will route to/from the low power network itself. Margaret On Nov 16, 2014, at 10:32 PM, 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. >> > > 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 _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
