> 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
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
>> Because babel itself does not know the complete topology.
>
> What I have considered doing at some point (when we get around to
> rewriting BabelDraw) would be to have the controller simultaneously
> connected to multiple Babel nodes, and build as much of the topolog
I have been fiddling with babeld. I have a configuration where the
default ipv6 gateway is not running babeld, however, just a couple other
routers.
I'd like to distribute a default IPv6 gateway via babeld, if
possible. It's unclear how to do this in the conf file.
Do I use a combination of rad
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 14:12:33 +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > this makes it difficult to reach nodes with more then one interface via
> > link-local when the routing protocol is not running.
>
> Use IPv6 with an explicit node id:
>
> ssh fe80::whate...@eth0
^
> this makes it difficult to reach nodes with more then one interface via
> link-local when the routing protocol is not running.
Use IPv6 with an explicit node id:
ssh fe80::whate...@eth0
> is there any way to change this?
No, and it wouldn't be completely trivial to change. There's currentl
>> A already connected to the socket for the frontend, but afaik i
>> gives me just one worldview.
> Because babel itself does not know the complete topology.
More precisely, every Babel node knows which are its neighbours. It
cannot distinguish between a second order and a third order neighbour
6 matches
Mail list logo
