Thanks for the review from me as well.
On 8.6.2015 17.28, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
You don't define ad-hoc interfaces. From Section 4, it would seem
that these are for non-transitive links with no prefix assignment (a
la AHCP), but in that case some changes may be needed to DNCP,
In it's current form the adhoc-interface category in-fact results in
an assignment of a /64 per EACH adhoc-interface
I see.
So is that meant to support non-transitive links, or something else? If
the former, I'll need to go through the DNCP draft and stare at the
places that seem to assume transitivity until grokking comes.
DNCP supports transitive links _and_ non-transitive links, but some
corner cases (e.g. consistently unreliable non-transitive links) result
in the well-known (and typically bad) naive non-mesh link-state routing
protocol-like behavior (flapping neighbor status, and in this case,
Trickle never settling down so bit more churn overall).
In any case, you need to provide some rationale and implementation
guidance for the ad-hoc interface type.
I wonder how well the implementation and the spec are in sync these days
- at least the implementation is very hairy in the various specialized
HNCP modes.
Sections 7.2 and 7.4: why announce a route for each subnet? We've
got redirects for that.
I think you misread that. The text says to announce one route per
"delegated prefix"
Right. Am I the only person who got confused by that?
I would like to get 'proof of life' of other people actually reading the
spec - anyone? ;)
Cheers,
-Markus
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
