Either way, it's useful information Juliusz, thanks for bringing it to the list!
Rick -----Original Message----- From: manet [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Henning Rogge Sent: 23 July 2016 09:27 To: Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: [email protected] Group; MANET IETF Subject: Re: [manet] Manet address assignment Hi, on the other side a well designed routing protocol does not need much (or any) node-specific configuration... and any mesh-wide configuration could easily deployed by the gateway inside a DNCP/HNCP TLV. Henning Rogge On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: > This message is being sent to the manet mailing list, with homenet in CC. > > I took to the microphone during this week's manet meeting to remind > people that Homenet has designed HNCP (RFC 7788), a protocol for > autonomous configuration of multilink home networks, and that it would > be a terrible missed opportunity if a protocol for manet > autoconfiguration were standardised that did not interoperate with HNCP. > > We at Babel Towers are currently experimenting with HNCP in a small > mesh network. The results are encouraging: up to some minor bugs in > the current implementation, HNCP is able to configure a (non-mobile) > mesh network with no operator intervention. We are planning to spend > some time working on shncpd, our implementation of HNCP, until it is > able to work well in our mesh network: > > - change the link sensing mechanism to work better on persistently lossy > links; > - add the ability to configure just a single /128 on loopback (shncpd is > already able to configure a /128 on each interface, which is useful > for mesh networks but out-of-spec -- HNCP requires a /64). > > If this works out, the plan is then to implement an HNCP protocol > extension that allows it to scale better in large and mobile mesh > networks; this will necessarily involve some tradeoffs, such as being > restricted to allocating /128. I'll let you know more when I have > code to show. > > Note that HNCP only does address configuration and naming; it does not > negotiate routing protocol parameters nor provide monitoring facilities. > Thus, it is not a complete solution for a MANET management protocol, > and I believe it does not conflict with the management work being done > within MANET. > > Regards, > > -- Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet _______________________________________________ manet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
