Bug #2479
closed
Prefix discovery protocol: change Name of routable-prefixes packet
100%
Description
Local prefix discovery protocol is now defined here: http://named-data.net/doc/NFD/current/misc/local-prefix-discovery.html
Essentially, hub publishes data packet with /localhop/ndn-autoconf/routable-prefixes prefix. However, this prefix is not registered (permanently) and should not be registered (permanently) by ndn-autoconfig client.
The protocol needs to be changed, so such prefix is published under /localhop/nfd or some other prefix that match prefix permanently registered during run of ndn-autoconfig.
Updated by Junxiao Shi over 10 years ago
Local prefix discovery protocol is now defined here: http://named-data.net/doc/NFD/current/misc/local-prefix-discovery.html
Is HubDiscovery wiki page deprecated?
If so, clear the contents and replace with a link to the canonical page.
Essentially, hub publishes data packet with
/localhop/ndn-autoconf/routable-prefixesprefix. However, this prefix is not registered (permanently) and should not be registered (permanently) by ndn-autoconfig client.
The protocol needs to be changed, so such prefix is published under/localhop/nfdor some other prefix that match prefix permanently registered during run of ndn-autoconfig.
Are you suggesting that routable-prefixes should be published under a prefix owned by NFD Management protocol?
I suggest using /localhop/nfd/rib/routable-prefixes. The rib component reflects that the set of routable prefixes is a property of the RIB on the gateway router.
In impl, ndn-autoconf-server can create Route /localhop/nfd/rib/routable-prefixes with CAPTURE flag.
Updated by Alex Afanasyev over 10 years ago
Hub discovery wiki is not related to discovery of routable prefixes. As of right now, it is just a copy of the documentation and doesn't contradicts (rather combines several) NFD manpages.
I'm ok with any prefix. /localhop/nfd/rib/routable-prefixes could be ok
Updated by Junxiao Shi over 10 years ago
ndn:/localhop/nfd is the namespace for NFD Management protocol. If routable-prefixes is under this namespace, it should be published as a StatusDataset.
diff from ndn:/localhop/ndn-autoconf/routable-prefixes is: Data Name has a segment number component.
On a higher level, fetching routable-prefixes Data packet doesn't need a Route. Instead, NextHopFaceId can be used to direct the Interest to the multicast face.
Updated by Junxiao Shi over 10 years ago
- Subject changed from Prefix discovery protocol needs an update to Prefix discovery protocol: change Name of routable-prefixes packet
- Assignee set to Junxiao Shi
- Target version changed from v0.3 to v0.4
- Estimated time set to 0.50 h
20150211 conference call approves the idea in note-3.
This solution can only support one connected gateway router.
The eventual solution could be:
- gateway router exposes its management API under
ndn:/localhop/spurs/nfdinstead ofndn:/localhop/nfd - tunnel authentication protocol discovers the prefix of gateway router ('spurs' in the example); tunnel authentication protocol itself will need to use NextHopFaceId field
- laptop's RIB daemon collects routable prefixes from all connected gateway routers (
ndn:/localhop/spurs/nfd/rib/routable-prefixes+ndn:/localhop/hobo/nfd/rib/routable-prefixes+ ...) - apps learn routable prefixes from laptop's RIB daemon at
ndn:/localhost/nfd/rib/routable-prefixesas a StatusDataset
Updated by Junxiao Shi over 10 years ago
- Blocks Feature #2512: ndn-autoconf-server: publish routable-prefixes as a StatusDataset added
Updated by Junxiao Shi over 10 years ago
- Status changed from New to In Progress
For now I'll describe the protocol in local-prefix-discovery.rst without mentioning StatusDataset.
Eventually the protocol will be part of Management.
Updated by Junxiao Shi over 10 years ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Code review
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
Updated by Junxiao Shi over 10 years ago
http://gerrit.named-data.net/1768
One small difference caused by not referencing StatusDataset is: each segment must contain complete Names; a Name cannot be split across two segments.
I don't think this is a big problem for now.
Updated by Junxiao Shi over 10 years ago
- Status changed from Code review to Resolved
Documentation update is complete, but reviewer suggests that #2512 should merge before this issue's Change.
Updated by Junxiao Shi over 10 years ago
- Status changed from Resolved to Closed
Updated by Junxiao Shi about 10 years ago
- Related to Feature #3145: Collect and publish routable-prefixes added