Re: [Babel-users] [babel] source sub-tlv

> On Jun 21, 2017, at 09:15, Matthieu Boutier wrote: > >> I still do find (1) wasteful. > > I really would like to feel your intuition. From my point of view: > > - either you'll have very few some-specific routes, in which case the >waste is negligible (isn't it the

Re: [Babel-users] [babel] source sub-tlv

> I still do find (1) wasteful. I really would like to feel your intuition. From my point of view: - either you'll have very few some-specific routes, in which case the waste is negligible (isn't it the case of multihomed networks ?), - or you'll have so much some-specific routes that

Re: [Babel-users] [babel] source sub-tlv

I've read draft-boutier-babel-source-specific-02 and I do agree that (3) isn't that simple to define. However I still do find (1) wasteful. How about Proposal 5, which I define as: By default, a vanilla wildcard request triggers a dump of all regular routes (by regular I mean from the original

Re: [Babel-users] [babel] source sub-tlv

Juliusz Chroboczek writes: > I support (3). Last time I spoke to him, Toke supported (4). I am > opposed to (2). I can live with (1). Well, I can see the point in retaining wildcard requests for speeding up convergence when a new node joins a network. Don't recall expressing a

Re: [Babel-users] [babel] source sub-tlv

I agree with Juliusz here. I support (3), can live with (1), and am opposed to (2) and (4). Allocating sub-TLVs for something that can be solved without is overkill, and I think wildcard requests are really critical to quickly bootstrap a new node. David > On May 31, 2017, at 07:55, Juliusz

Re: [Babel-users] [babel] source sub-tlv

Matthieu, could you please write up a new version of the I-D with your encoding? You might want to speak to Gwendoline, since she needs to write up her TOS-specific encoding. > If we keep this behaviour and mix tos-specific routes, we will have > to send 4 wildcard requests to have all routes.