IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Thu, 27 June 2013 06:28 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 AA2B521F9C22 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 RcvlnOQAFQ9y for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ea0-f173.google.com (mail-ea0-f173.google.com [209.85.215.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B3F21F9C55 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ea0-f173.google.com with SMTP id g15so158713eak.18 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:28:38 -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=JvYICsmhpAnfcjlvOJaEji8CuYzQEcZep3nknC3ALkM=; b=k3gfbN7BdPBfvGhgi4g9OQaum2C/dy32uOM3ZPEjBRlO0T1fjn9fJZgwGRw+CY5AUT Qf8Uy08d/y3ytD4/X9J6PR3clVeirXa3oruGclMZmeRogjEdecO5K4yCYphx0o+b0K3B PG34c4THy1jVciWf4nkRSMYL/4wEYsFEdqNmgPbF5CbaiF3kFuF0Iq0f5EiA5fWKXFE4 U7xM4PoJEEv5ckHqtJkBEcehOeI4Vcej3zh27iFWKMmz9P+3B95+/83hasF4NKhV6KgI /Q/ipfNih5auZovfjJoHSk4jLqeatJ6ALVyVhkhUWYoI7Q0kJOW4BAKNNjIzaXtxh6Ns neLw==
X-Received: by 10.14.2.137 with SMTP id 9mr7309405eef.64.1372314518610; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.4.22] ([188.205.88.52]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e44sm1750947eeh.11.2013.06.26.23.28.37 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:28:37 -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: <CAGnRvuoDyqNzvMyYQuE=71hJx95b2RubR=bqaM4bRr+To4L6Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:28:35 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <299C00BD-EA94-448E-AF10-556CC566042E@inf-net.nl>
References: <878v1yqhje.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <0E223B9A-F615-4E46-971C-84A3117AA27A@employees.org> <87a9mcbhx8.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAGnRvuoDyqNzvMyYQuE=71hJx95b2RubR=bqaM4bRr+To4L6Tg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henning Rogge <hrogge@googlemail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlChQlKKslPlDzZSMGxRjMtYCzZKLacE2AhJRwHqlmDcMA7br0XkBbbJQM1+3mdPhIDOxhf
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, "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: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:28:46 -0000

Op 27 jun. 2013, om 07:55 heeft Henning Rogge <hrogge@googlemail.com> het volgende geschreven:

> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
> <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:
>>> what's a routing protocol?
>>> a distributed database.
>> 
>> No, it isn't.
>> 
>> ....
>> 
>>> do we need to invent a separate distributed database for each class
>>> of information?
>> 
>> Yes, because different kinds of information have different
>> requirements.  There is information that needs to be reliably
>> synchronised in a timely manner (the link-state DB), there is
>> information that must be distributed in a timely manner but need not
>> be synchronised throughout the network (configuration information),
>> there is global information that is too large to be distributed except
>> on demand (DNS), there is local information that is not distributed
>> except on demand (mDNS), and probably many other kinds that I'm missing.
> 
> I agree with Juliusz, putting all information transfer in the homenet
> (including routing decisions, configuration and DNS?) area into a
> single protocol is crazy. We don't gain a lot by this strategy except
> a lot of complexity and inflexibility in the implementation.

There are different aspects such as single routing protocol, single routing protocol instance, single daemon.
Reusing existing stuff, clean separation of functionality and good efficiency are all nice goals. We end up somewhere in the middle and improve from there.

Just the routing protocol choice: do we need a single protocol for IPv4 and IPv6? With single instance and single topology? Is multicast routing fully integrated? A lot of questions already.

Teco



> Henning Rogge
> 
> --
> We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered
> long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to
> set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email