Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Thu, 19 September 2019 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jch@irif.fr>
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 E4427120059 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 16:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RmC0gJrcwRjl for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 16:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 881B8120043 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 16:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id x8JNTq3V013753; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 01:29:52 +0200
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42BF458977; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 01:29:55 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id kphda-U7_e_F; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 01:29:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F96B58975; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 01:29:46 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 01:29:46 +0200
Message-ID: <87v9tnvp91.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <8BC1E900-3E7D-44F0-A01D-94D468627BFF@fugue.com>
References: <878sqkwtoc.wl-jch@irif.fr> <8BC1E900-3E7D-44F0-A01D-94D468627BFF@fugue.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Fri, 20 Sep 2019 01:29:52 +0200 (CEST)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5D840F70.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5D840F70.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5D840F70.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/7o8USICGdyVgftKCLGJDJAcKUJU>
Subject: Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 23:29:59 -0000

>> HNCP is a standards track protocol, and there's nobody left who's
>> willing and competent to work on a new revision.

> Yes, of course. We can never change a standards track protocol. That
> would be wrong. :)

My wording was perhaps badly chosen.  Sorry for that.

I meant to say that I don't currently see anyone who would be both willing
and able to (1) change the HNCP spec to add application-layer
fragmentation, (2) update the hnetd implementation to obey the new
protocol, and (3) go through the somewhat time- and energy-consuming
process required to publish a new Standards Track protocol.

(To be clear -- as far as I'm concerned, I declare myself incompetent on
all three points above.  The most I could conceivably do would be to review
a new spec and update shncpd so it interoperates with a new revision of hnetd.)

> What I’m trying to understand is how bad a problem this is.

My understanding is that while HNCP should have no trouble scaling to
large networks, it is not designed to carry large amounts of per-node data.

This could cause trouble in the following cases:

  - if a single node has hundreds of HNCP neighbours (e.g. because it is
    connected to a large switch or serves as a tunnel server);

  - if a single node announces large numbers (dozens) of external
    connections; or

  - if a protocol extension dumps large binary blobs into HNCP.
  
-- Juliusz