SS Update
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 13 |Length | AE | Flags |
If the Flags field contains any flags, then the resulting parser state
will be different for original and source-specific implementations. This
will break interoperability.
Yes, there is a problem with the compression mechanism for the destination
prefix. The solutions are:
- no
- no compression,
What I'm suggesting is a little weaker. There's still compression, but
only non-specific updates can set the prefix. (It shouldn't matter much
in practice, though, I expect most SS-updates to be for the default
route.)
Not sure what to do about compression for source
What I'm suggesting is a little weaker. There's still compression, but
only non-specific updates can set the prefix. (It shouldn't matter much
in practice, though, I expect most SS-updates to be for the default
route.)
Not sure what to do about compression for source prefixes.
After
I do not mind if you break backward wire compatibility against
existing versions of babels, but do it soon, please, and warn people.
My users are
pretty tolerant of breakage, so long as they are warned
I would not mind a shim of some sort protecting against older babels's
format and newer...
switching to a new TLV number for the newer flag-less format and sending
warnings for receipt of the old (old style babels packet received,
please update babel on that machine) seems most comforting to me.
I feel your pain, Dave, but that's something that I have to take a firm
stand about, or
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
switching to a new TLV number for the newer flag-less format and sending
warnings for receipt of the old (old style babels packet received,
please update babel on that machine) seems most comforting to me.
(I am concerned about mis-parsing stuff),
Don't worry too much, it's bad for your complexion. This is a distance
vector protocol, if we mis-parse something, you'll get an extra route in
your routing table, which will timeout within seconds.
A more serious potential problem is that when Babel
On Jul 1, 2014 3:31 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
(I am concerned about mis-parsing stuff),
Don't worry too much, it's bad for your complexion. This is a distance
vector protocol, if we mis-parse something, you'll get an extra route in
your routing table,
Dear all,
Here is the source-sensitive packet's format I used in my implementation.
Before the code be merged in babeld, it may be interesting to have comments.
(By the way, note the latest version of babels is on the highly subject to
rebasing ss-tables branch of my public repositories.
I have updated
http://www.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~jch/software/babel/babel-tlv-registry.text
-- Juliusz
___
Babel-users mailing list
Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
11 matches
Mail list logo
