> On 23.7.2015, at 9.08, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Markus Stenberg wrote: > >> If you want to configure IS-IS metrics using HNCP, I welcome the draft. > > I do not really want HNCP to configure it, but hnetd could. I am not sure we > need to spread information regarding the metrics around the homenet, but > perhaps we should. There are of course other ways of solving this. > > I still think it's an oversight that the arch document doesn't say anything > on this point. Traditionally, a routing protocol takes a bit of > configuration, such as prefixes/addresses and metrics, and off it goes and > uses this information to figure out routing. In this case we're saying > HNCP/hnetd sets up prefixes, but it doesn't set up metrics. This > clarification would be good to have somewhere.
I would personally prefer the auto-configured metrics be set up with minimal overhead, that is, without extra traffic on the link. What could be used for it (locally) are e.g. - HNCP traffic roundtrips are one option (and do not require TLVs as you state), but the option is not 'great', as roundtrips occur only when state changes - An-RP handling (c.f. Babel, manet-ish stuff, ..) (even in IS-IS, I believe this would be better solution; moar TLVs = better protocol?) However, whatever measures are taken, ultimately they boil down to per-node implementation choice. If we spread the metrics in HNCP, we actually are essentially defining it as the RP anyway. as all it is missing are the metrics, and I would rather not go there. Therefore HNCP document is not the place, as it defines the protocol for most part, and some implementation details (but this is too much of an implementation detail to be relevant, I believe, as it is RP-specific). Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
