IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Wed, 26 June 2013 10:34 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 CCAB821E8138 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 03:34:58 -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 ineSzXKp69Wa for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 03:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-x235.google.com (mail-ee0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C62E21E8137 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 03:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ee0-f53.google.com with SMTP id c41so7415438eek.12 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 03:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=p1sSENh1XR9oCamyujTyFDQTBPbWLVNMe0BMfkkfmaE=; b=HFx7/a0yDUVFvjUgl7SpUvvRScQ8ceN6WMMitY9hrbphNMZpFDyyue06AKAxcwL01w xdu41gcy5Indsl6BKk8swBvIOJxZoXTwR1z3Cs5yh5dq+n8a7RgyfyCaDsd63hPgE6Bz /v/aTAxMFMIVX70NLq+h8IJVhE73hzLPxTUeFWAbuL3DZznLHSF4fZZ2jF0yAO9OeSRz pCz7YX2GPqM3zbUWsBGjF9wi0wmggbG229Jd3YCOBWQQshV2I3bfri0SKUdYbcsNpQKf ZDaFC6UpYK5+9lHCJisi+71QEi6FU1bvOqInQR3KY82ipTFK7bxY/NBWHCVzBDLGnPcf vBHQ==
X-Received: by 10.14.1.70 with SMTP id 46mr3417100eec.82.1372242894362; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 03:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.4.22] ([188.205.88.52]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b7sm42044816eef.16.2013.06.26.03.34.52 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 03:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <878v1yqhje.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:34:51 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FCD748BF-EB05-4FEF-86E9-88181B5807F4@inf-net.nl>
References: <878v1yqhje.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmWbIQZwCgzNCLRRnm2Bre5CWJga37EuTPEvAVCiyqM1bKW096dn7XqFJ/5rDWmHXbraVGq
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org Group" <homenet@ietf.org>
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 10:34:58 -0000

Op 25 jun. 2013, om 18:30 heeft Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 3. Possible configuration protocols
> 
> 3.1 RA
> 
> RAs are ignored by routers, and rightly so -- RAs have no loop
> avoidance mechanism, and using RAs to configure routers leads to
> a number of problems that I believe to be unsolvable.  Extending the
> RA protocol to be suitable for configuring routers is probably not
> worth the hassle, and will lead to confusion.


RA's are used for address auto configuration, also for routers.
Using RA's has an important advantage: new options can be added easily. This sets up a signaling channel to all nodes. Non-upgraded hosts shall ignore the new options. Upgraded hosts (like MPTCP) need such info. I'm not a great fan on implementing a large set of flavors of routing protocols on hosts. Hosts are not homenet-only, that is why I highly prefer a single solution that works on many types of networks.

RA packet is single hop. Info in RA comes from other places, could be manually configured, could be from remote. There are many proposals adding some kind of hop-by-hop RA option. Loop-free dissemination is not an issue.

So I have to disagree here, RA is a viable option.

Teco

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email