Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> 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 allowed by RFC 6126. > >> Hmm, the RFC says this (which I seem to have previously missed): > >> If the metric field is FFFF hexadecimal, this TLV specifies a >> retraction. In that case, the current router-id and the Seqno are >> not used. AE MAY then be 0, in which case this Update retracts all >> of the routes previously advertised on this interface. > >> Doesn't that make them in spec? > > It was certainly my intent to allow them, but Markus disagreed.
Well I would certainly argue that it was allowed; but apparently easy to miss. Will think about what to do about it in the Bird code. Why is babeld setting the 0x40 flag on those updates, though? -Toke
