On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote: > What you are suggesting requires some form of tighter binding between HNCP > and the RP. This raises a number of difficult questions, such as what is > the metric space (e.g. RIP uses 4-bit integers, IS-IS uses 8- or 24-bit > integers, plain Babel uses 16-bit integers, the Babel-Z extension uses > variable-length vectors of 8-bit integers), what mechanism should be used > to communicate the metric between HNCP and the RP (is the kernel priority > field suitable and what systems implement it?) and how often HNCP should > inform the RP of metric fluctuations.
yes, putting the metric values of links into the HNCP database sounds BAD. Configuring the type of metric of the routing protocol could be a job for HNCP (similar to delivering a shared key to the routing protocol, its a configuration issue). Putting metric values in there does not. Henning Rogge _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
