On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: > If I understand Dave right, the idea is to switch things around: instead > of having the Nest node speak a stub version of a Homenet protocol, you > have a specialised Homenet node that speaks a degraded version of Nest's > protocol (just like a babel-pinger node speaks both Babel and a degraded > version of DNS).
yes. > This solves the issue of unexpected routing pathologies (the Homenet node > is participating in the native Homenet routing protocol, and hence doesn't > introduce any new pathologies), as well as that of flash and RAM usage (the > Nest node isn't running any new software). It does cause sub-optimal > routing, though, unless the specialised node is at the right place in the > network. If Homenet assume any "lightweight nodes" (e.g. a Nest node) speak IP, then using ICMP might be an easy way to do this. If the node does not speak anything beyond its own protocol, I agree it would need a special piece of code in the Homenet node. Henning Rogge _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
