> On 23.7.2015, at 10.41, Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> > wrote: > Right now, the interaction between the routing protocol and the rest of > the stack is very simple and very clean: HNCP redistributes assigned > prefixes into the RP, and the RP redistributes the default route into the > RA server. Redistribution is a well understood, widely implemented > mechanism, one that we all feel comfortable with.
To be more specific, [1] HNCP running daemon (e.g. hnetd) _configures interfaces_ which causes local on-link routes to show up in the local RIB, and eventually get grabbed by the RP. [2] RP redistributes them to other nodes' RIBs. [3] RA server grabs the route from RIB and everyone wins. I prefer this sort of loose binding, and bunch of other protocols deal with local RIB too, so I believe HNCP 'fits' the typical model best this way. +- the SHOULD border discovery setting of allowed routing protocol interfaces; obviously, we could just deal with _firewall_ and not touch RP at all. I believe we should ensure that HNCP spec only states which interfaces should not have router-router configuration _such as routing protocol_, and leave actual HNCP implemenation - RP interaction implementation choice. (Firewall, reconfigure, rewrite config + boot in the head, ..) Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
