At the risk of receiving the rotten tomatoes left over from this afternoon,
let me try something here. Suppose there was a routing protocol called,
oh, IsBabeliS. Do the extracts that Margaret cited make sense like this?
> "[Each router implementing HNCP] MUST implement and run IsBabeliS.."
> "[Each router implementing HNCP] MUST use adequate security mechanisms for
> IsBabeliS on any interface where it also uses the security mechanisms of HNCP"
> "IsBabeliS routing based on source and destination address is necessary."
> "Such an interface acts as an internal interface with the exception that HNCP
> or IsBabeliS traffic MUST NOT be sent on the interface…"
> "[The prefix assignment algorithm] MUST create an appropriate route for said
> prefix, indicating it is directly reachable on the respective link and
> advertise said route using IsBabeliS."
> "The router publishing a prefix with internet connectivity MUST announce an
> IPv4 default route using IsBabeliS"
> "A Route Information Option [RFC4191] MUST be added for each delegated IPv6
> prefix known in the HNCP network. Additional ones SHOULD be added for each
> non-default IPv6 route with an external destination prefix advertised by
> IsBabeliS."
> "In addition, the router SHOULD announce a Classless Static Route Option
> [RFC3442] for each non-default IPv4 route advertised in IsBabeliS with an
> external destination."
If that makes sense (for any value of IsBabeliS) I don't think we have a
problem.
I would suggesting adding text near the beginning stating that HNCP is agnostic
about the routing protocol, but that a single routing protocol must be used.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
