Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[NetworkRoutes] next_id attribute #9

Open
nemesifier opened this issue May 31, 2015 · 5 comments
Open

[NetworkRoutes] next_id attribute #9

nemesifier opened this issue May 31, 2015 · 5 comments
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@nemesifier
Copy link
Member

See: https://lists.funkfeuer.at/pipermail/interop-dev/2015-May/000406.html

The last change was in the Routes object... I have added a "next-id"
field, which will contain the router_id of the next hop. This is VERY
useful when you work with linklocal IPs, because you cannot recognize
the next-hop router by the IP!

@nemesifier nemesifier added this to the Improvements during implementation phase milestone May 31, 2015
@nemesifier
Copy link
Member Author

we were discussing the possibility of implementing the following changes in NetworkRoutes:

  • rename "destination" to "destination_address"
  • add "destination_id"
  • rename "next" to "next_address"
  • add "next_id"

And in "NetworkGraph":

  • rename "source" to "source_address"
  • add "source_id"
  • rename "target" to "target_address"
  • add "target_id"

Question:

  • Are you (plural you) sure of wanting to add more attributes?

if yes:

  • Should the new attributes be mandatory or optional?
  • Can we avoid the renaming by keeping the attribute name without the
    "_address" suffix? We can write in the spec that those attributes
    without the suffix refer to addresses by default, while the ones
    with "_id" suffix refer to the "router_id"

Reference: https://lists.funkfeuer.at/pipermail/interop-dev/2015-August/000498.html

@nemesifier
Copy link
Member Author

This attribute would suits also Babeld's needs, according to @jech in
https://lists.funkfeuer.at//pipermail/interop-dev/2015-August/000505.html

@jech
Copy link

jech commented Aug 14, 2015

Should the new attributes be mandatory or optional?

All attributes should be optional, since any attribute will be difficult to provide by some software.

Can we avoid the renaming by keeping the attribute name without the "_address" suffix? We can write in the spec that those attributes without the suffix refer to addresses by default, while the ones with "_id" suffix refer to the "router_id"

Yes.

@nemesifier
Copy link
Member Author

To recap, it seems there is consensus on adding the following OPTIONAL attributes:

NetworkRoutes:

  • destination_id
  • next_id

NetworkGraph:

  • source_id
  • target_id

@jech would this change make NetJSON compatible with Babel and other vector distance protocols?

@HRogge
Copy link

HRogge commented Aug 27, 2015

"All data optional" means no automatic processing.

We need mandatory values which allow us to move from one part of the data to the other one.

the "id" fields would allow us to connect nodes and edges... if a routing protocol does not use special id's, it can just repeat the address (as long as its unique).

@nemesifier nemesifier modified the milestones: 2nd round of feedback, 1st round of feedback Sep 7, 2015
@nemesifier nemesifier changed the title next_id attribute in NetworkRoutes [NetworkRoutes] next_id attribute Nov 30, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants