On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote: >> I wonder if the "data-propagation/router control" part of HNCP and the >> "attached host control" part of HNCP should be split into two >> entities... this would allow the second one to get hints from the >> routing protocol about the metric without generating a dependency >> cycle. > > There's no "attached host control" part in HNCP -- there's just RA and > DHCPv4 (DHCPv6 optional). HNCP is purely a router-router protocol.
you could say that setting your local prefix on the interface is "control the local node" and setting up RA/DHCPv4 is "control the address of the host". still, at the moment I just see a problem and have no good solution, just a few guesses. > It's a pretty clean design. > > In principle, it might be possible to use routing protocol metrics to > influence RFC 4191 preferences, but I'm not sure how that would work. > If you know (and have implementation experience), I'm interested. I just got my olsrv2 implementation source-specific routing capable... I plan to look at your "simple" HNCP implementation to see how routing metrics could help. But this is still a "todo" for me. Henning _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
