> On 19.2.2015, at 10.52, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: >> We're not talking about a routing protocol for every possible use case here >> - we're talking about a fairly well defined environment (aka "fairly small >> number of devices, IPv4 and IPv6 only, and implementations constrained by >> lack of clue on the manufacturer side"). > Well, to further explain my concern regarding that and current approach, I > now see that current proposals is to have the HNCP and $ROUTINGPROTOCOL > split. If we choose Babel, then we've locked outselves into this split and > HNCP needs to be extended to handle every future functionality needed since > babel can't do much more than it already does. > > For instance the security work now being done on HNCP. Does ISIS already > offer the same functionality? I can't evaluate security very well, I don't > know how many active in this working group that can. I would rather use an > already standardized mechanism for doing this.
Luckily I can. The comparison document unfortunately lacks references, and I am not motivated enough to look it up, but based on the comparison document, it does not. IS-IS essentially offers just the good old ‘password’ scheme (and so does Babel). It is not user-friendly, that’s why DNCP has 2 other PKI based modes too (CA hierarchy, trust consensus). Certainly, we could argue that we use something like mini-HNCP to ‘bootstrap’ IS-IS, but I am not sure that is a clever idea either. > It's been a while since the decision to create HNCP (which was originally > designed so it could work inside a TLV carrying routing protocol) instead of > carrying the required "homenet" information in the routing protocol. The > basis for this decision, is that still true (that the routing protocol WGs > and implementors refused to accept the TLV types needed and the APIs needed)? At the time there were fears of routing protocol peeing in it’s pants, given sufficiently churny data, and/or political process stalling us for years. I think we have seen the later effect already. I do not believe in the former. > It's been what, 1.5-2 years since then? We've already noted that HNCP looks > awfully close to a link state protocol and duplicates quite a lot of of > functionality. Right. It is essentially bit more modern take on a link state routing protocol. So if you bring it up, I bring up the another argument - why not route using it? Cost of doing _that_ is ~100 LoC (+ whatever fancy thing we want to do with metrics). Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
