Hi Lorenzo,
I'm not sure I fully grasp all the details of the debate about Babel here,
but here is an RFC recommending /128 are the way to go on similar links.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889
And if you want to read more about why these recommendations came about,
read this:
All 3 of those are GPL, AFAICT? That doesn't make for a good reference
if you want a permissive license for your code.
Agreed. (And agreed with Henning, we can look, we just cannot touch.)
-- Juliusz
___
Babel-users mailing list
Well, I tried the patches and they did not work (as expected), but I
think we are closer. I will try to create some test cases using ip
route to do what I want, and get back to folk when I have time. I have
a ton of other reasons to want to grok the netlink code more deeply.
I note that I called
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I tried the patches and they did not work (as expected), but I
think we are closer. I will try to create some test cases using ip
route to do what I want, and get back to folk when I have time. I have
a ton of other
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
Babel (dont know about OLSR) finds a usable path, then tunes to a
better one, but each tuning step (particularly at high rates) can lose
packets, which cause rate reductions. Ideally would like to never
Babel (dont know about OLSR) finds a usable path, then tunes to a
better one, but each tuning step (particularly at high rates) can lose
packets, which cause rate reductions. Ideally would like to never lose
packets while tuning happens.
I agree, but I would like to know how many packets we
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
Babel (dont know about OLSR) finds a usable path, then tunes to a
better one, but each tuning step (particularly at high rates) can lose
is there an out of tree patch for any of these already existing?
The last public commit to the babel portion of wireshark was quite
some time ago.
I can put it on my todo list. Looks straighforward to add the
additional encodings from the
RFC.
--
Dave Täht
We CAN make better hardware,
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Matthieu Boutier
bout...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
I think the unique key for the route is destination, routing table
and metric. The metric part is important, if you put the routing
protocol path cost into the route, atomic replacement will not work.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there anywhere a good reference to netlink?
I mostly use the source code of the ip route command. I don't think
anyone ever got to the point writing good documentation.
Be happy, you could be working with the multicast
Is there anywhere a good reference to netlink?
iproute2, libnl, kernel sources ?
If I understand it correctly you just need to set the routes with
NLM_F_CREATE | NLM_F_REPLACE to get the atomic replacement.
-DEFINES = $(PLATFORM_DEFINES) -DVERSION=\$(VERSION)\
+DEFINES =
Phh... this is a good question... I would guess YES, otherwise the
whole source-specific routing would not work.
Ok course, I was confused.
-const int has_atomic_replacement = has_ipv6_subtrees; /* Dave says that
if a
+const int has_atomic_replacement = has_ipv6_subtrees
I think the unique key for the route is destination, routing table
and metric. The metric part is important, if you put the routing
protocol path cost into the route, atomic replacement will not work.
Interesting (so the previous patch is wrong). Did you know about the
source part? (RTA_SRC)
Good as a reference... not that good for copying code directly.
Henning
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:56:41 +0200, Matthieu Boutier wrote:
Is there anywhere a good reference to netlink?
iproute2, libnl, kernel sources ?
14 matches
Mail list logo
