On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 01:01:44PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote: > I note that the only difference in quagga babeld vs babeld behavior > (aside from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7298 ) that I could detect > at the last time I did major interoperability testing (I still have > quagga babel up at various points of my network however and can look > harder in the source specific case where I have had some issues in my > deployment - more likely something else ) > > was that quagga installed blackhole routes, while babel installed > unreachable routes, and I'd felt the latter was more correct. I don't > know if this issue was resolved in later versions.
It's the same Babel implementation (possibly an outdated version of it, depending on what you look at). The kernel interface is different, hence the above difference, but all code between on-wire packets and the final route selection is essentially the same. > babeld had more powerful route filtering, I'd had a case where I'd > wanted to distribute ipv6 but not ipv4 over an interface and couldn't > figure out how to do it right in quagga. Some features were replaced with Quagga's equivalent, e.g. route maps and prefix lists. I guess this adaptation may result in a slightly different feature set. -David _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
