Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: > The important thing to understand is that a neighbour association is > between interfaces, not between routers; therefore Hello and IHU packets > do not carry a router-id, just a link-local address. It would certainly > be possible, and not too onerous, to either add a sub-TLV to Hello to make > the router-id explicit, or to add a flag to Update that identifies > locally redistributed routes. However since neither of these pieces of > information is relevan to routing, I find the idea somewhat > distasteful.
Yeah, but it seems to me like it's relevant to debugging broken routes. I'm interested in associations which did *not* become routes, such as because they were not the best way. For instance, three nodes (A,B,C) in a oblique triangle. Let's say that the multihop case (A->B->C) is lower power, and has higher ETX than the (A->C) route due to stuff like trees, buildings, or interference along the direct route. But, it would be nice to know that the A->C association is *possible* should B die or need to be rebooted, etc.... -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
