On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Gert Doering wrote:
We're not talking about a routing protocol for every possible use case here - we're talking about a fairly well defined environment (aka "fairly small number of devices, IPv4 and IPv6 only, and implementations constrained by lack of clue on the manufacturer side").
Well, to further explain my concern regarding that and current approach, I now see that current proposals is to have the HNCP and $ROUTINGPROTOCOL split. If we choose Babel, then we've locked outselves into this split and HNCP needs to be extended to handle every future functionality needed since babel can't do much more than it already does.
For instance the security work now being done on HNCP. Does ISIS already offer the same functionality? I can't evaluate security very well, I don't know how many active in this working group that can. I would rather use an already standardized mechanism for doing this.
It's been a while since the decision to create HNCP (which was originally designed so it could work inside a TLV carrying routing protocol) instead of carrying the required "homenet" information in the routing protocol. The basis for this decision, is that still true (that the routing protocol WGs and implementors refused to accept the TLV types needed and the APIs needed)?
It's been what, 1.5-2 years since then? We've already noted that HNCP looks awfully close to a link state protocol and duplicates quite a lot of of functionality.
There is talk about how complicated ISIS is. How complicated is DNCP/HNCP going to be when we're done with it? How many LoC is it now?
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
