Subject: [homenet] Manet address assignment

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 01:17:13 +0200

This message is being sent to the manet mailing list, with homenet in CC.

I took to the microphone during this week's manet meeting to remind people
that Homenet has designed HNCP (RFC 7788), a protocol for autonomous
configuration of multilink home networks, and that it would be a terrible
missed opportunity if a protocol for manet autoconfiguration were standardised
that did not interoperate with HNCP.

We at Babel Towers are currently experimenting with HNCP in a small mesh
network.  The results are encouraging: up to some minor bugs in the
current implementation, HNCP is able to configure a (non-mobile) mesh
network with no operator intervention.  We are planning to spend some time
working on shncpd, our implementation of HNCP, until it is able to work
well in our mesh network:

  - change the link sensing mechanism to work better on persistently lossy
    links;
  - add the ability to configure just a single /128 on loopback (shncpd is
    already able to configure a /128 on each interface, which is useful
    for mesh networks but out-of-spec -- HNCP requires a /64).

If this works out, the plan is then to implement an HNCP protocol
extension that allows it to scale better in large and mobile mesh
networks; this will necessarily involve some tradeoffs, such as being
restricted to allocating /128.  I'll let you know more when I have code to
show.

Note that HNCP only does address configuration and naming; it does not
negotiate routing protocol parameters nor provide monitoring facilities.
Thus, it is not a complete solution for a MANET management protocol, and
I believe it does not conflict with the management work being done within
MANET.

Regards,

-- Juliusz

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 10:26:44 +0200

Hi,

on the other side a well designed routing protocol does not need much
(or any) node-specific configuration... and any mesh-wide
configuration could easily deployed by the gateway inside a DNCP/HNCP
TLV.

Henning Rogge

On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Rick Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 08:31:25 +0000

Either way, it's useful information Juliusz, thanks for bringing it to the list!

Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: manet [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henning Rogge
Sent: 23 July 2016 09:27
To: Juliusz Chroboczek
Cc: [email-masked] Group; MANET IETF
Subject: Re: [manet] Manet address assignment

Hi,

on the other side a well designed routing protocol does not need much (or any) node-specific configuration... and any mesh-wide configuration could easily deployed by the gateway inside a DNCP/HNCP TLV.

Henning Rogge

On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I took to the microphone during this week's manet meeting to remind 
> people that Homenet has designed HNCP (RFC 7788), a protocol for 
> autonomous configuration of multilink home networks, and that it would 
> be a terrible missed opportunity if a protocol for manet 
> autoconfiguration were standardised that did not interoperate with HNCP.
>
> We at Babel Towers are currently experimenting with HNCP in a small 
> mesh network.  The results are encouraging: up to some minor bugs in 
> the current implementation, HNCP is able to configure a (non-mobile) 
> mesh network with no operator intervention.  We are planning to spend 
> some time working on shncpd, our implementation of HNCP, until it is 
> able to work well in our mesh network:
>
> restricted to allocating /128.  I'll let you know more when I have 
> code to show.
>
> Thus, it is not a complete solution for a MANET management protocol, 
> and I believe it does not conflict with the management work being done 
> within MANET.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- Juliusz
>