Subject: [homenet] HNCP -- almost no nits, yay!

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:37:53 +0200

I've just reread the current HNCP draft (version of 17 August, 10:51), and
I have almost no nits.  If anyone is interested, I've written up a few
notes about shncpd's compliance on

  http://www.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~jch/software/homenet/shncpd.html

This needs to be completed with DNCP and PA compliance, of course.

Minor nits:

Section 6.5: MUST NOT for ULA if global IPv6 available -- "in the absence
   of explicit user configuration"?

Section 8: "HNCP routers providing name resolving services MUST resolve
   these names to their respective IP addresses as if there were
   corresponding A/AAAA records."  This is not clear to me; what exactly
   should an HNCP node be doing?  What "naming services" are being
   referred to?  Does this apply to locally published names, or also to
   names discovered over HNCP?

Section 11. "If the CE sends a size-hint as indicated in WPD-2, the hint
   MUST NOT be determined by the number of LAN-interfaces of the CE, but
   SHOULD instead be large enough to at least accommodate prefix
   assignments announced for existing delegated or ULA- prefixes, if such
   prefixes exist and unless explicitly configured otherwise."  I have
   serious doubts about this recommendation, it feels like there's
   a feedback loop somewhere, I wouldn't swear it doesn't diverge really
   badly.  What about simply looking at the number of links in the Homenet?

---

From: Steven Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:08:18 +0200

> notes about shncpd's compliance on
Thanks.

>    of explicit user configuration"?
I think you misunderstood the requirements text here. It only says, there may
only be one locally generated ULA in the network (denoted by the absence of any
prefix policy TLVs). It is not in any way coupled to having public addresses,
it is even possible to have other "delegated" ULA-prefixes from e.g. VPN connections
in parallel.

>    names discovered over HNCP?
The sentence you quoted is referring to names announced using HNCP Node Name TLVs.
Naming resolving services is described in the second paragraph of Section 8,
I staged some small clarifications here.

>    badly.  What about simply looking at the number of links in the Homenet?
This is non-trivial in the presence of meshy ("ad-hoc category") links. Though
I agree that the current thing is a bit fishy, so more suggestions are welcome.