> On 23.7.2015, at 6.39, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Markus Stenberg wrote: >> Agreed. I think we will remove routing protocol references from HNCP just to >> be clear, as in practise what we really interact with is the local route set >> and not the routing protocol itself anyway. I guess it was easier to write >> the way it is, but as it causes confusion, rather fix it and drop the RP >> dependency except for the border discovery result triggering running / not >> running of 'a suitable routing protocol' somewhere. > We still need to figure out how routing protocol metrics should be done.
If IS-IS is used, yes. However, HNCP is routing protocol agnostic document by design (if for no other reason, just the fact that e.g. potential homenet IS-IS profile will be years in coming due to the normative references). Explicit routing protocol mentions there confuse people, so we plan to remove them instead of adding routing protocol dependencies. > For me, these are configured, indicating to me that HNCP should do it. If we > leave it out of HCNP, well then that's a requirement on the routing protocol > itself to implement a mechanism itself to do it without any prior knowledge > of what the world looks like. Why should it? You can specify it in-band with the IS-IS profile for homenet. > I had a quick scan through the architecture document and it says that the > routing protocol is self configurable, so I guess this is why we have > differing views on what things are up to the routing protocol and what is up > to the rest of the architecture to set up and influence. If you want to configure IS-IS metrics using HNCP, I welcome the draft. The transport is easily enough extensible for probing and announcing even quite dynamic metrics; however, I think it is not really the place for it in base spec as non-IS-IS use cases do not require it. Therefore I do not see the point in having it in the core spec. For the record, we are going to still remove routing protocol references from the HNCP, except for the optional border discovery one, as they were NOT what was intended. Now is the time to pipe up here (or the second WGLC of HNCP) if tighter binding between HNCP and 'a RP' was seen as desirable by someone. I do not find it elegant; 'addressing and routing should stay separate' (-someone). And regardless of what homenet WG comes up with, decoupled protocols enable different use cases elsewhere. Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
