[Ndn-interest] NLSR dissemination of FIB updates

[A K M Mahmudul Hoque (ahoque1)]

________________________________________
From: Lan Wang (lanwang)
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2014 8:31 AM
To: Salvatore Signorello
Cc: ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu; A K M Mahmudul  Hoque (ahoque1)
Subject: Re: [Ndn-interest] NLSR dissemination of FIB updates

Salvatore,

nfdc changes routes in the local RIB and FIB only (you can think of these routes as static routes in the IP forwarding table).  It is not designed for advertising routes to other routers.  For that, you need to use a routing protocol (e.g., NLSR).

Hoque can answer your other question:
 - as option for launching the nlsr daemon they provide '-p' to specify
> the "port where api client will connect" (nlsr's usage output). I looked
> at the code, but I'm not able to find out if they've already
> implemented/used this functionality. Could you please provide me any
> hint about its aim/meaning?


--- It will be implemented in future. The aim of this one to tell NLSR to advertise prefix,
--- or even adding neighbors without taking down NLSR. Not only that this API can be
--- used to remove old prefixes link that are no longer valid. The objective is to do those
--- things without taking shutting down NLSR


Lan
On Aug 5, 2014, at 4:28 AM, Salvatore Signorello <unict.signorello at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've noticed that if I register a new name-prefix into the RIB using the
> command nfdc, the nlsr daemon does not disseminate the new added route
> to its neighbors. Below the syntax I used:
>
> 1) nfdc register ndn:/ndn/finance/colostate udp://IP_address
>
> 2) nfdc register -o 128 ndn:/ndn/finance/colostate udp://IP_address
> (this time is tried the 'origin' option I read on into the nfdc's man
> page)
>
> 3) nfdc register -c 45 -o 128 ndn:/ndn/finance/colostate
> udp://IP_address
> (I've added a cost for this route, thinking that a zero cost could stick
> the protocol)
>
> for every attempt the name-prefix registration was successful, but I saw
> no trace of dissemination for the new name-prefixes. Have I used the
> right syntax/command? Is this the expected behavior?
>
> Further I would be glad if someone could answer two more questions about
> this behavior:
>
> - what's the rationale behind it? I mean, for which reason do they want
> the name-prefixes registered through this command to not be disseminated
> to neighbor routers?
> - as option for launching the nlsr daemon they provide '-p' to specify
> the "port where api client will connect" (nlsr's usage output). I looked
> at the code, but I'm not able to find out if they've already
> implemented/used this functionality. Could you please provide me any
> hint about its aim/meaning?
>
>
> Thank you in advance for the support,
> best,
> Salvo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ndn-interest mailing list
> Ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu
> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest