Re: [Babel-users] unicast attempt breaks timestamping

2017-01-09 Thread Juliusz Chroboczek
>> - 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. That's by design. Draft-jonglez-babel-rtt-extension (of which you are the first

[Babel-users] Breaking compatibility with pre-1.5.1 babeld on OpenWRT/LEDE

2017-01-09 Thread Baptiste Jonglez
Dear babeld users on OpenWRT/LEDE, Starting from babeld 1.5.1, the UCI format for configuring babeld on OpenWRT had changed to be more consistent with upstream babeld (use the same option names, and a few other changes). At the time, I had ensured backward compatibility, see:

Re: [Babel-users] unicast attempt breaks timestamping

2017-01-09 Thread Juliusz Chroboczek
>> Based on the patch juliusz supplied me to enable unicast IHU, and >> >> default enable-timestamp true >> >> this stops sending timestamps (which apparently relies on hellos and >> IHUs being bundled together) > Can you provide the patch in question? I cannot find the original patch, but it

Re: [Babel-users] unicast attempt breaks timestamping

2017-01-09 Thread Dave Taht
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > Hi again, > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 11:02:05AM -0800, Dave Taht wrote: >> Based on the patch juliusz supplied me to enable unicast IHU, and >> >> default enable-timestamp true >> >> this stops sending

Re: [Babel-users] unicast attempt breaks timestamping

2017-01-09 Thread Baptiste Jonglez
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