Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird

> But now i wonder why not to accept unfeasible updates of selected routes? > (At least in a case where router ids differ and the the update is handled > as retraction.) Obviously, that would case the route to be de-selected. I think you're right, that's a possible improvement. -- Juliusz

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird

> Using random router-id seems like a good idea. Perhaps even an TLV that > describes 'nominal' configured router-id, so regular router-id could be > random, but routes could still contain configured router-id for admin > purposes. Unfortunately, Babel does not have support for something like >

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird

On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 03:02:55PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > What you describe is perfectly correct. > > > I have two questions w.r.t. this sequence of events: > > > 1) How is router restart and seqnos supposed to be handled without > > waiting for route timeout? > > It's worse than

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird

On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 03:04:21PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > Well, section 2.8 (and in more detail section 3.5.5) specifies that we > > should keep unreachable entries, but IMHO it does not specify that the > > old route is considered selected/installed for a purpose of conditions in >

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird

> Well, section 2.8 (and in more detail section 3.5.5) specifies that we > should keep unreachable entries, but IMHO it does not specify that the > old route is considered selected/installed for a purpose of conditions in > section 3.5.4. The unreachable entry after retraction could be undestood >

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird

What you describe is perfectly correct. > I have two questions w.r.t. this sequence of events: > 1) How is router restart and seqnos supposed to be handled without > waiting for route timeout? It's worse than that, actually -- it's not the route timeout, it's the source GC time. The issue is a

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird

On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:59:35PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Ondrej Zajicek writes: > > > I have two questions w.r.t. this sequence of events: > > > > 1) How is router restart and seqnos supposed to be handled without > > waiting for route timeout? > > This

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0

Do you have plans in near feature create ipv4 support?in this case I can drop bird and use only bird6 for ipv4/ipv6 routes inside my network. 1 Май 2016 г. 16:14 пользователь "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" написал: > Ondrej Zajicek writes: > > >> Right, yeah, the

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0

> Also now it seems to me that even the current code is not valid as it > implicitly assumes that the prefix length is 128 with this flag. > As the spec says 'low-order 8 octets of the advertised prefix' then > if one advertise 2001:DB8:1020:3040:5060:7080::/96, then low-order > 8 octets of this

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 03:15:52PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Baptiste Jonglez writes: > > While I'm not sure what the purpose of this is (a null update with a > null router ID with infinity metric and interval?) it *is* technically > in spec. I think the

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0

I can confirm that toke's current set of fixes compiles on a rpi3, AND that I am too stupid to figure out how to create a correct, basic, babeld .conf file for bird. On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Juliusz Chroboczek

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0

Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >> Okay, actually trying to put this into code: Is the intention here that >> a null-router ID update is acceptable only on *wildcard* retractions or >> on *all* retractions? > > In RFC 6126, there's nothing special about a null

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0

> Okay, actually trying to put this into code: Is the intention here that > a null-router ID update is acceptable only on *wildcard* retractions or > on *all* retractions? In RFC 6126, there's nothing special about a null router-ID: it's just a router ID. However, for AEs 0 and 1, the address is

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0

> Ah, I see. But surely, having an update with AE 0 and the flag set would > not be out of spec either, as long as router ID 0 is not disallowed? That's what I thought too, but Markus disagreed. -- Juliusz ___ Babel-users mailing list

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0

Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >> Why is babeld setting the 0x40 flag on those updates, though? > > It was supposed to clear the router-id. Recent versions no longer do. Ah, I see. But surely, having an update with AE 0 and the flag set would not be out of spec

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0

> Well I would certainly argue that it was allowed; but apparently easy to > miss. Ok. Then please consider it as allowed, as all current implementation parse it fine. > Why is babeld setting the 0x40 flag on those updates, though? It was supposed to clear the router-id. Recent versions no

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0 (documentation)

I would like to see bird itself grow a finer knowledge of time smaller than 1sec. -- Dave Täht Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! http://blog.cerowrt.org ___ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0 (documentation)

Baptiste Jonglez writes: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 04:15:46PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> Baptiste Jonglez writes: >> >> > Ah, I thought that this "interface" statement was specific to Babel, but >> > it's actually defined

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0

Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >> But those updates seem to set flag 0x40, so that's not "without a router >> ID" is it? > > Yeah, it was meant to clear the router-id. > >>> The plan is to explicitly allow such retractions in RFC 6126-bis, but >>> they are clearly not

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0

> But those updates seem to set flag 0x40, so that's not "without a router > ID" is it? Yeah, it was meant to clear the router-id. >> The plan is to explicitly allow such retractions in RFC 6126-bis, but >> they are clearly not allowed by RFC 6126. > Hmm, the RFC says this (which I seem to have

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0 (documentation)

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 04:15:46PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Baptiste Jonglez writes: > > > Ah, I thought that this "interface" statement was specific to Babel, but > > it's actually defined for all protocols. The syntax seems fairly complex: > > > >

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0

Baptiste Jonglez writes: > Ah, I thought that this "interface" statement was specific to Babel, but > it's actually defined for all protocols. The syntax seems fairly complex: > > http://bird.network.cz/?get_doc=bird-3.html#ss3.3 > > IP prefixes are allowed for

Re: [Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0

Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >> I remember running into this. What happens here is that babeld sends an >> update without a preceding router_id TLV, with a wildcard address, but >> flag 0x40 set (meaning "infer the router ID from the address"). >> While I'm not sure

[Babel-users] Babel in Bird 1.6.0

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 01:20:14AM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > On 29 April 2016 20:24:43 CEST, Ondrej Zajicek wrote: > >I would like to thank Toke Høiland-Jørgensen for the Babel protocol > >implementation, which was finally merged despite my tardy code reviews.