On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 02:11:19PM +0200, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > 2.) TRANSITIVE flag as proposed by Linus > > + outside of batman-adv (no maintenance work) > + can be set by the user through sysfs, similar to settings of batman-adv > + semi-automation possible: Other software like VPNs, or network drivers > could set this flag without specifically need to integrate with batman-adv > (not sure if this would ever happen though) > - will take some time to be adopted: first it goes into the Linux kernel, > OpenWRT will have it when it updates to the new kernel. That could easily be > 1-2 years > - requires more work with on other components, don't know if the various > upstream projects will want that > - linux-net adoption unclear (but there are already ~18 flags, why not have > one more) > - Personally, I don't like the name TRANSITIVE. What we really want to say > is > whether we expect all other nodes in a broadcast domain to receive broadcasts > sent by anyone. Maybe we could use a more clear/easier/common name?
Also: + can be used by other routing protocols, too (for instance BABEL and it's split-horizon switch - works similar to the no-rebroadcast sysfs thingy for batman-adv, but for protocol instead of broadcast/multicsat traffic - can still break some setups if bridges on remote devices are involved (for instance bridge between ethernet and adhoc, like Adrian pointed out)
