Re: [Babel-users] [babel] source sub-tlv

Matthieu, could you please write up a new version of the I-D with your encoding? You might want to speak to Gwendoline, since she needs to write up her TOS-specific encoding. > If we keep this behaviour and mix tos-specific routes, we will have > to send 4 wildcard requests to have all routes.

Re: [Babel-users] draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-02

Juliusz, Thanks for making these edits, they look great. The only real issue is the handling of NextHop and RouterID with unknown mandatory sub-TLVs, which was discussed on another thread. I also think Appendix C (Considerations for protocol extensions) should be changed now that we have

[Babel-users] Fw: Diversity routing configuration help

Hi all, Please anyone help me in this. ThanksBalaji On Monday, 29 May 2017 8:17 PM, Balaji .J wrote: Hi Juliusz chroboczek, Thanks for your help, as i'm using uci configuration i tried by adding diversity '0' and diversity_factor '128' in /etc/config/babeld

Re: [Babel-users] [babel] source sub-tlv

I agree with Juliusz here. I support (3), can live with (1), and am opposed to (2) and (4). Allocating sub-TLVs for something that can be solved without is overkill, and I think wildcard requests are really critical to quickly bootstrap a new node. David > On May 31, 2017, at 07:55, Juliusz