Juliusz, I've actually been wondering about this, too. I am not sure about the history here, because the last version of HNCP I read (in preparation for the last IETF meeting), HNCP contained its own (underspecified) link-state routing protocol… If that protocol were replaced with an already-existing link-state routing protocol, one that had the ability flood additional information about the links, it might be possible to use that already-existing routing protocol as the underlying communication mechanism for HNCP. We would still need to specify what HNCP information is sent, but the routing information and HNCP information could, possibly, be transmitted over the same protocol. I don't know if that would work with a non-link-state routing protocol, as part of what HNCP was using its internal routing protocol to distribute was information about all of the links.
I don't know what facilities IS-IS or Babel have for sending additional information about each link, and I don't know if we actually want to require that very node that needs HNCP information run IS-IS or Babel, but I think this is worth considering. I will think about this, read some stuff, and try to come up with my own opinion about it ASAP. I would suggest that other people do that, too. I think Markus' comments on security are also very important to consider here, as some sort of integrated security mechanism between the routing protocol and HNCP might be strongly desired. Margaret On Mar 2, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: >> One thing that has been mentioned to me is that IS-IS could be used >> (with proper TLV additions) to completely replace HNCP, if IS-IS were >> used as the homenet protocol. > > I see that you've been speaking with Abrahamsson. Please let me give you > some background. > > Two years ago, there was a very animated discussion about whether the > configuration protocol and the routing protocol should be separate or not. > After a lot of energy was spent on the issue, Markus designed HNCP, which > went through a few iterations. The chairs judged that WG consensus was > achieved, and the configuration protocol is now separate from the routing > protocol. > > Since achieving consensus on this was a lot of work, some of us are > somewhat annoyed at Mikael bringing this argument back from the dead at > every opportunity. > >> If true should we be calling this out more explicitly in the document? > > I seem to recall that I already mentioned that I find your tendency to > bring out controversial arguments just before a deadline somewhat offputting. > > -- Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
