Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: >>> If the latter, I can see some opportunities for transient routing loops >>> if not done carefully. (And you certainly don't want a routing loop on >>> a link with low-power nodes.)
>> That’s interesting. Could you try explaining what could happen ?
> I hope I'm just being paranoid, since I rather like the idea of
> redistribution through HNCP.
> A and B are homenet nodes. L is a low power node.
> A-----B
> \ /
> \ /
> L
> |
> |
> LLN
Not a valid topology. This is the correct topology:
> A-----B
> \ /
> \ /
> LLNgate (aka Thermostat)
> |
> L---+---L
> L-+-L
the low power nodes are not the gateway. That just doesn't work.
> A and B are both announcing the LLN route. L crashes. A and B both
> notice that L is no longer reachable, so each of them attempts to route
> through the other one. You have a transient routing loop that lasts until
> A and B agree on the fact that L is unreachable.
There is no impact on the low power nodes or the gateway. This is inevitable.
> On a wired network, the routing loop will be extremely short-lived (one
> successful packet exchange for both Babel and OSPF, not sure about IS-IS).
> I'm not sure what will happen on a wireless network, but I've learnt to be
> pessimistic about the behaviour of 802.11. I could imagine cases where
> the looping data traffic prevents A and B from communicating successfully,
> especially if L had more than just two Homenet neighbours.
So you are saying you think that the looping L traffic will consume all of
the bandwidth of the wireless network, and that will keep the routing
protocol from converging again.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
pgpbxWFFLt8FH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
