On 2.6.2014, at 22.11, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Steven Barth <cy...@openwrt.org> wrote: >> I prepared the first few changes for the upcoming HNCP draft version 01. >> Most of this is derived from features we already added to our reference >> implementation. > I confess to being more interested in a status update on the implementation. ?
I guess we’ll present on the topic in Toronto along the draft update(s), but highlights since London so far: - arbitrary prefix length handling in prefix assignment - ad-hoc/guest mode for interfaces (as specified by Steven’s diff to the -00 draft) - support for giving PDs to downstream non-HNCP routers - implemented (and also somewhat tested) 6rd, dslite, map, lw4o6 transition mechanisms - SA-aware PCP proxy/server (v4 NAT + v6 FW pinholes) on top of miniupnpd + new proxy and of course - a lot of bugfixes / performance optimizations (notably, Pierre’s PA code has btries and much better alg both in terms of pseudorandom allocation, as well as handling the ‘fragmentation’ of prefix space with different sized allocations) We’re working on: - improving configuration/management (more knobs that you can turn if you feel like, and similarly better view of what’s going on; some of this is already done, but more work is pending) - security And at some point it would be nice to have also: - multicast (sitelocal) - UPnP (IGD perhaps via proxy, rest via multicast and/or proxy) However, this brings to my mind a thing I’ve been meaning to ask the list for a while now. What is the take on hncp-00 draft format? Should the strictly optional things (such as SD TLVs) be moved elsewhere? If so, how about the somewhat more required parts such as PA or border discovery? Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
