I was not proposing to use the HNCP TLVs for routing. Actually, I wasn't proposing to change the internal use of TLV movement much at all in HNCP, I was proposing to move them to IS-IS and use that to synchronize them instead of using the current transport. I do not see the fundamental difference in syncronizing TLVs between machines by means of HNCP (trickle based) and by means of a link state protocol (ISIS).
One of the problems here I think is that it runs on L2, thus you cannot simply encrypt and / or asymmetrical authenticate it with anything like IPsec or (D)TLS. Therefore you would need to actually define, maintain and implement your own IS-IS specific TLS or IKE-like protocol which would actually add a lot more complexity than DNCP as a transport does.
Actually one might even argue in the opposite direction that unless the IGP offers some fancy dynamic metrics based on e.g. bandwidth or reliablity etc., what would be the point of combining HNCP with a single-area LSP if you might as well do a simple graph traversal on the HNCP topology to generate routes?
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
