Ondrej Zajicek <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 04:57:43PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> What, we have to be nice to the users now? ;) >> >> Fair enough, I'll add support for both types of channels. Should it be >> possible to connect the same instance to both an ipv6 and and ipv6_sadr >> channel type, or is it OK to enforce that there's only one of those >> active? > > It is OK to enforce that there is only one of those active. How > non-SADR-aware Babel should handle SADR routes? Is it mandatory > sub-TLV, so they are ignored; or optional sub-TLV, so they are handled > as regular routes?
It's mandatory, otherwise you can get routing loops. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-03#section-6 I figure the packet parser needs to be aware of whether it is configured to support SADR routes and drop all source-specific updates if not... -Toke
