All clear, thank you! Lorenzo
2016-12-07 14:27 GMT+01:00 Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@irif.fr>: > > so if I understand correctly, when A sends an Update to B, B needs to > know > > address of A and, according to the proper circumstances, B gets address > of A > > either from IPv6 packet's source address (case 1) or from The Next-hop > TLV > > sent on purpose by A (case 2). > > Correct. > > > x y z w > > A ------- B ------- C > > > with B that has, in its routing table, an entry for prefix of C with > > next-hop set to w. I would like that by announcing this route, > > B includes the fact that its selected next-hop is w. > > Note that if w is an IPv6 link-local address, it might in principle not be > globally unique, and hence announcing it to A might be ambiguous. (In > practice, you'll find that your link-locals are unique, though.) > > > If I understand correctly what I would call my "next-hop" TLV has a > different > > meaning from the RFC one, therefore I should put the info I need into a > subtlv > > right? > > I'd call that the "second-hop", to avoid ambiguity, and dump it in a new > sub-TLV of the Update TLV. Just grab a sub-TLV number in the experimental > range: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/babel/babel.xhtml#sub-tlv-types > > -- Juliusz >
_______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
