Re: [homenet] HNCP: interaction with routing protocol?

Mikael Abrahamsson <> Sun, 13 December 2015 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 265F01B2BEB for <>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 11:37:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.261
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j2CLFQxWFNeG for <>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 11:37:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F06D1B2BE6 for <>; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 11:37:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 501) id 292B9A2; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:37:02 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1450035422; bh=Nfxh7+J+p6QbfkppIcQonJwvh3mwxfiP3HLHniHyiB0=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=qjpg/n4tfSf6Ps0MEbXYNwxqWl45zNBiHg1C3Y9LnrmGRvRm7FNOSAb3/22vCmrM3 LCP97gigLDeQ85THFBmwLABdxkg9DlhKgN4C3fUHiRdu3eOpuM9GrakmUQohMyXqv5 yvwYogk/CLSjf98VUw0XV6aMJf8E5Lrh4em6w1/I=
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C0D0A1; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:37:02 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:37:02 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] HNCP: interaction with routing protocol?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:37:07 -0000

On Sun, 13 Dec 2015, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:

> I'm probably missing something -- but where in the HNCP document does it
> say that applied prefixes must be announced over the routing protocol?
> I don't see it in Section 6.3.3.

I'd say the role of HNCP and the routing protocol and what does what, is 
not really specified anywhere.

Otoh, it's very natural for me that a routing protocol would do 
"redistribute connected" or at least do this for interfaces marked as 
"HNCP". From my testing before on the actual OpenWRT implementations as 
they are configured out of the box as I tested them, it seemed babel was 
doing "redistribute connected" for all interfaces, and the isis zebra 
implementation was only doing this for HNCP marked interfaces. What the 
right thing to do here should probably be a SHOULD somewhere, but I'm not 
sure the HNCP specification document is the right place to do it.

It would probably make sense to have a document that defines what the 
routing protocol does. We've had discussions here before where assumptions 
have differed between different participants in the group...

Mikael Abrahamsson    email: