[Nfd-dev] [Operators] reachability of broadcast and guest prefixes

[John DeHart]

Alex,

Is this new package ready to go? Looks like you have it installed on UCLA.
Should I update the rest?

John

On 8/14/14, 8:50 PM, Alex Afanasyev wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> I have proceed with your suggestion and new package is on its way to 
> be available soon.   I did basic tests, but could have screwed up 
> again with upstart scripts, so be cautious :)
>
> Small note.  ALL_FACES_PREFIXES should be only for /ndn/broadcast
>
> /ndn/guest should be part of ON_DEMAND_FACES_PREFIXES only on spurs, 
> since only spurs is home for guest users.  All other nodes should just 
> have their site's prefix as part of on-demand.
>
> ---
> Alex
>
> On Aug 14, 2014, at 12:34 PM, John DeHart <jdd at seas.wustl.edu 
> <mailto:jdd at seas.wustl.edu>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Alex and Junxiao,
>>
>> Is it possible to expand nfd-autoreg to handle two sets of prefixes, 
>> one for on-demand faces and one for all faces?
>> Right now in the config file for autoreg config file we have
>> # Prefixes to register
>> PREFIXES="/ndn/guest /ndn/broadcast /ndn/edu/memphis"
>>
>> What if we had
>> # Prefixes to register on All faces:
>> ALL_FACES_PREFIXES="/ndn/guest /ndn/broadcast"
>>
>> # Prefixes to register just on on-demand faces:
>> ON_DEMAND_FACES_PREFIXES="/ndn/edu/memphis"
>>
>> on-demand faces would get both sets.
>> Non-on-demand faces would get just ALL_FACES_PREFIXES.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On 8/14/14, 1:10 PM, Alex Afanasyev wrote:
>>> I have proposed that before, but will repeat.  I don't think that 
>>> broadcast prefixes (and setting the strategy) is what NLSR should 
>>> do.  At most, this should be some other routing protocol.   What we 
>>> could do instead is to write a tiny little daemon like nfd-autoreg, 
>>> which job would be just to register /ndn/broadcast for every created 
>>> face (not just on-demand ones).  May be we can ignore application 
>>> faces, though it doesn't matter for NDN testbed much.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> On Aug 14, 2014, at 9:55 AM, Junxiao Shi 
>>> <shijunxiao at email.arizona.edu <mailto:shijunxiao at email.arizona.edu>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi John
>>>>
>>>> fib.max-faces-per-prefix is the maximum number of Routes with same 
>>>> Name prefix that NLSR will install to the RIB.
>>>> The parameter starts with "fib." due to historical reason; it 
>>>> concerns what NLSR would install to the RIB, not FIB.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest setting this parameter to 60, so that expansions in the 
>>>> near future are also covered.
>>>> When there are no more than 5 backbone links, setting it to 5 or 60 
>>>> has same effect.
>>>>
>>>> This short term solution would stop working when a HUB has more 
>>>> than 60 backbone links, but this day is unlikely to come within one 
>>>> year.
>>>>
>>>> Yours, Junxiao
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 9:46 AM, John DeHart <jdd at seas.wustl.edu 
>>>> <mailto:jdd at seas.wustl.edu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Junxiao,
>>>>
>>>>     Ahh. I was thinking of the fib.max-faces-per-prefix as a limit
>>>>     on all faces not just
>>>>     ones that NLSR is concerned with.
>>>>
>>>>     In the testbed right now we have 5 nodes that
>>>>     each have 5 links to other nodes. Those are the most connected
>>>>     nodes.
>>>>     So, if we set the fib.max-faces-per-prefix for NLSR to >= 5 we
>>>>     should be ok.
>>>>     Right?
>>>>
>>>>     John
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Operators mailing list
>>>> Operators at lists.named-data.net <mailto:Operators at lists.named-data.net>
>>>> http://lists.named-data.net/mailman/listinfo/operators
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/nfd-dev/attachments/20140814/dd68ead2/attachment.html>