On Jul 23, 2015, at 06:39, 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.
Yes. Please do that, Markus. I generally like the border router discovery features, because that’s related to provisioning domains, but I really think it’s past time to stop trying to make HNCP say anything about what routing protocol is in operation in the home network interior routing domain. I don’t even want to see anything that tries to elect one. Kill it with fire. > We still need to figure out how routing protocol metrics should be done. No, we don’t. We really don’t. Leave that for the people who are working on specific routing protocols for home networking. I think we have reached the point now where, if HOMENET tries to say anything more at all about the routing protocol in the home interior domain, then it will backfire with further loss of organizational credibility. Stop. Just stop. We failed to reach consensus on a mandatory routing protocol. The design team bent over backward to avoid appearing like they were actually make a recommendation, so let’s give them their fig leaf. We know that an election system would be worse than none at all. It’s over. Stop. There is really no choice left. Ship HNCP without any knowledge of the specific routing protocol in use. > 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. We should absolutely leave the configuration of routing protocol specific routing metrics for the specific routing protocol to do itself, given only the prefix distribution results provided by HNCP, which absolutely needs to be agnostic about the routing protocol or it won’t win consensus required to push it over the line for publication. On Jul 23, 2015, at 08:16, Markus Stenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. I would not welcome the draft. I would prefer that it not be written at all. —james _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
