IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] Configuration must not be carried by the routing protocol

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 26 June 2013 08:16 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746CA21E8105 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o6M6tecLLBQN for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153F321E80D7 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id AB9D59F; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:16:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A66549C; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:16:44 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:16:44 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1FhwdtrSpXJQhdBHmuH37M3u_DzAiTpkKyV1L+dpstrw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1306261013110.4696@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <878v1yqhje.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAKD1Yr1FhwdtrSpXJQhdBHmuH37M3u_DzAiTpkKyV1L+dpstrw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org Group" <homenet@ietf.org>, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Configuration must not be carried by the routing protocol
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:16:53 -0000

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:

> If you have two protocols, then the two sets of information are 
> disseminated asynchronously, and potentially - if there is a problem 
> with one of the two - not at all.
>
> As running IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel shows, it's way harder to make two 
> things work than just one, because it's so much harder to figure out if 
> things are working or not.

I agree with this.

As an exmaple there has been great pain with LDP and IGPs in the MPLS 
space, up to the point where people had to invent mechanisms to hack 
around stuff so IGP wouldn't start using the link until the other one was 
done.

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5443>

So if multiple protocols are to be used, great thought has to be put in to 
make sure the devices know about these mechanisms and can handle 
situations where one of them doesn't work.

I'm sure there are multiple other examples.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email