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

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Fri, 18 December 2015 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006A31A8ABE for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:20:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 BYYFPsy-Nwr9 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:20:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D06D1A8A9D for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:20:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id l126so60703084wml.1 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:20:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=4V3K3uCP8I+9BhXxtMtmgRBltdp54ig9kCt8XZjSJAk=; b=yXqBNEVpoaO+mzU29a0qPdNar5IcYDth6VAWzaeDOYxqWYtTiot+NiwuIpy9AGaiPr VqGUpr09mmoQo6Qe4Uu2Ti1jdKESpUyrv+N4Lh+p9ScMv17/c4bl2BXPJR9J99d8XySi oTaCJlCW739kgVm7shzR6zBiF6/JhoUtGsBppTKDS+9QV4bPAlLZmv+bXwcQroWN3PDq 4CVf1UlMHRyztme3Joswny2bbpy3uNr59p1Cg2qHb5TmuCf45NtHODsZ3L0tSexQ5f1+ InuuoJHBfHgSO+5Ggp3az2gknTWvARkqvqtO3OEMcRC2EqIoETG90Vo2zR8eWnYlSqvP O02A==
X-Received: by 10.28.1.5 with SMTP id 5mr2431524wmb.61.1450437639210; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:20:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.94.195 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:20:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <87oadq47xa.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
References: <87a8pegqs5.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1512132029350.20919@uplift.swm.pp.se> <87wpsif4kq.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1512140712170.20919@uplift.swm.pp.se> <87oadq47xa.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:20:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGnRvupvP0XLQDWm7mN3cOi1t8fC43cJfA__0dPSc3ovtjDSnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/fflOgwpdo1MjarWGVym0tz9NRIc>
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org Group" <homenet@ietf.org>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Subject: Re: [homenet] HNCP: interaction with routing protocol?
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:20:42 -0000

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek
<jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:
>> hnetd does address configuration on interfaces, the routing protocol picks
>> this up because that's how it's configured...? Hnetd doesn't communicate
>> directly with the routing protocol at all, right? It just sets up the
>> landscape so the routing protocol can come and survey it and communicate
>> the contents.
>
> That's exactly right (and very well put).  That's what I tried to express
> in my talk at Prague -- it turns out that HNCP is a very clean design.
> (Except where it isn't, of course.)
>
> Hnetd and shncpd do that somewhat differently.  Hnetd assume that the
> routing protocol redistributes everything.  Shncpd has closer binding to
> the routing protocol, it marks its routes as "proto 43" and expects the
> routing protocol to redistribute just that; shncpd also occasionally
> inserts dummy "proto 43" routes into the kernel, just so that they get
> redistributed into the routing protocol.  The result is that shncpd
> produces somewhat cleaner (more aggregated) routing tables, at the cost of
> requiring special configuration of the routing protocol.

Just redistributing protocol 43 will also make you miss the default
route you get by DHCP from an uplink.

Henning Rogge