On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:18:02PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > Can you provide the patch in question? > > I cannot find the original patch, but it basically consists in always > taking the alternative (else) branch in the conditional at line 1666 in > message.c. > > > Is there any reason why you couldn't send hellos alongside the IHUs? > > Yes, Hellos cannot be sent over unicast in the current protocol. So if > all IHUs are sent over unicast, the timestamps are ignored. > > I see two solutions: > > - extend the IHU timestamp sub-TLV to allow an optional timestamp, > perhaps only used when sent over unicast;
I just checked [1], we should be able to do that without breaking interoperability. Nice. Dave, do you want to give it a try? > - extend the protocol to allow unicast Hellos. I don't see the implications of such a change, so I can't really give an opinion. Baptiste [1] https://github.com/jech/babeld/blob/master/message.c#L245
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users