> On 22.7.2015, at 17.10, Pierre Pfister <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just throwing an argument that comes into my mind here. > > HNCP advertises configuration. Long-lived things. > It is likely that DNCP is quite inefficient when it comes to changing things > all the time. > Metrics can evolve. Particularly wifi links metrics. So we probably do not > want to put that in DNCP.
I am not sure how well e.g. ISIS deals with constantly changing link metrics either (hello, constant link state db sync). So there would have to be some sort of hysteresis and e.g. just orders of magnitude different metric changes reported in any case. (Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, while I have had something to do with some IS-IS implementation in the bast, read book or two, and half the specs, I am far from expert.) Building the mechanism in-band in IS-IS would be better in this case anyway as the link state database churn would map 1:1 to metric churn _anyway_. Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
