Sorry for the self-reply. That's what you get when you send e-mail at the
first crack of noon.
What about putting multiple netlink messages in one datagram?
Will perhaps do that. :-)
Remark: error handling become more tricky -- but for just 2 messages it
should be fine.
Do you think that
Hi Denis,
a recent build of tcpdump can decode everything you mention except the
source-specific bits
Attached is a patch for the source-specific decoder.
Matthieu
0001-Babel-add-decoder-for-source-specific-extension.patch
Description: Binary data
If you work with atomic route replacement even putting ALL of them
into a netlink message (or as many as you can fit in) works.
Henning
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Matthieu Boutier
bout...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
I agree, but I would like to know how many packets we lose. Since
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
Interface index is not a problem... metric-change is.
I am sorry, I do not understand, once again.
If the route has the same destination and metric, you will overwrite
it with an atomic update, regardless of the outgoing
If you work with atomic route replacement even putting ALL of them
into a netlink message (or as many as you can fit in) works.
What I understand is that we can't (in general) work with atomic
*next-hop* replacement (interface index and metric may change).
I proposed a workaround where instead
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Henning Rogge hro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Matthieu Boutier
bout...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
If you work with atomic route replacement even putting ALL of them
into a netlink message (or as many as you can fit in) works.
What
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
Also the diagram above would require a security model that manages to
keep things safe with untrusted speakers in between (here you would need
an advice from somebody experienced with the problem stated
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
My understanding of the babeld code is that unicast code is in there
but not used, and if it were used, it would not work against existing
babel daemons. ?
You MAY send any Babel TLV over unicast except a
8 matches
Mail list logo
