>> Both HNCP and Babel carry their control traffic over link-local IPv6, but
>> they support both IPv4 and IPv6 with almost equal functionality.
>>
>> (The only significant difference is the treatment of border routers, which
>> are assumed to be doing NAT in IPv4 and stateless routing in IPv6.)
> Oh, I thought the charter was for v6 only. Did that change, or am
> I misremembering?
Yeah, I never understood that. The charter is pretty much v6-only, but
I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that we should omit IPv4 support
(but then, I only got involved around the summer of 2014). RFC 7788 says:
While RFC 7368 sets no requirements for IPv4 support, HNCP aims to
support the dual-stack mode of operation, and therefore the
functionality is designed with that in mind.
while the Babel profile for Homenet says:
REQ3: a Homenet implementation of Babel SHOULD implement the IPv4
subset of the protocol
The implementation status is pretty solid:
- both implementations of HNCP (hnetd and shncpd) have good support for
IPv4 and DHCPv4;
- of the six implementations of Babel known to me, four support IPv4
(babeld, BIRD, FRR and David's Top Secret Implementation).
-- Juliusz
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
