Re: [homenet] DNCP/HNCP Revisited

RayH <v6ops@globis.net> Thu, 19 September 2019 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <v6ops@globis.net>
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 58C1B12000F for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.478
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.377, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, MISSING_MIMEOLE=1.899, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 oaHX4mnnVa9i for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from globis01.globis.net (92-111-140-212.static.v4.ziggozakelijk.nl [92.111.140.212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3EDC120108 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B772401C3; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 17:19:41 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at globis01.globis.net
Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gYe_xhgU_W5P; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 17:19:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.124.170.51] (unknown [143.179.120.171]) (Authenticated sender: v6ops@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38965401B5; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 17:19:38 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 17:19:35 +0200
Message-ID: <ca63f70f-56b4-438b-99ae-46b09c89596d@email.android.com>
X-Android-Message-ID: <ca63f70f-56b4-438b-99ae-46b09c89596d@email.android.com>
In-Reply-To: <8BC1E900-3E7D-44F0-A01D-94D468627BFF@fugue.com>
From: RayH <v6ops@globis.net>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>, HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/uDUWqHpL9GLSgr-P7U6PiRa6Oc0>
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 15:19:44 -0000



On 19 Sep 2019 15:11, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

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

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


That's what I'm still trying to understand.

The reason for the 64k limit is clear (due to the design choice of relying on UDP fragmentation).

What's still unclear to me is why the packet contains all the nodes' TLV's. 

That is whether the limit is per node or per network.

It's not clear to me if that's an implementation issue (requesting four node TLV status requests in one packet, and ditto replies) or a standards issue (all node TLV's must be transmitted when the network TLV changes).

Regards,
RayH

> On Sep 19, 2019, at 04:56, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:
>
> 
>>
>> This still doesn’t address the problem that the HNCP packet needs to be
>> fragmented.  Fragmented Multicast doesn’t scale well.
>
> HNCP doesn't fragment multicast, it only uses fragmentation for (link-local)
> unicast.  This is way less severe than what you incorrectly claim.
>
> At any rate, the right time to discuss that was 2015, not now.  HNCP is
> a standards track protocol, and there's nobody left who's willing and
> competent to work on a new revision.
>
> -- Juliusz

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet