> Could the controller build up the topology via route request messages
> (section 3.4.10 of the rfc) unicast with a prefix of 0, instead?
In principle, it could. But consider what I say in Section 3 of the draft:
A Babel packet MUST be silently ignored unless [...] its source port
is the well-known Babel port.
In other words, the current version of Babel will silently ignore any
requests you'll send it unless you send them from the Babel port.
I guess that I could relax this requirement in the case of request
packets. Does anyone see any reason why that is not a good reason?
Juliusz
_______________________________________________
Babel-users mailing list
Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
