Markus, Steven,
Unless I'm mistaken, there's an issue with DNCP and monitoring nodes.
Consider the following topology:
A --- M --- B
A and B are ordinary DNCP nodes, while M is a monitoring node, as
described in the second paragraph of Section 4.4. So M doesn't publish
a NODE-STATE TLV, but other than that it fully participates in the
protocol.
Due to the silly walk described in Section 4.6, A's network state consists
of just itself, and similarly B. Whenever M sends a NODE-STATE TLV,
either A's or B's Trickle timers are reset, leading to excessive traffic.
I don't see a good solution to that. If you don't reset trickle when you
see inconsistency from a node that doesn't publish NODE-STATE, then you
have a bootstrapping problem (new node whose NODE-STATE is unknown). If
you forbid monitoring nodes from sending NODE-STATE, then you break
Trickle for them.
Perhaps there's no good way to allow a node to participate without
publishing NODE-STATE. Grr.
-- Juliusz
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
