On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 02:06:11PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > BTW, are third-party next hops allowed in Babel? I checked RFC 6126 > > but found nothing. > > Hmm, third-party next hops as in a next hop that is on a different node > than the one running the routing protocol?
Yes, using the original next-hop/via (as the route is exported to the protocol). Generally it is restricted to cases where the next-hop is on the same link/iface. > There's no explicit support > for it, but I guess you could do that (i.e., there's nothing that > explicitly forbids it either). Not sure how babeld will react to non-LL > next hop addresses... Note that it supposes that link level reachability is transitive, which is true for regular networks, but is not be true for ad-hoc wireless networks (and some other obscure types of networks). Also note that third-party next hops still may be link-local (say from OSPFv3) but also global (say from static protocol). > > Also note that the new next hop options are missing its documentation. > > Perhaps you could send following patch with that? > > Ah yes, sorry about that. Was going to add that in v2, but guess I must > have forgotten. Will send a separate patch that updates the > documentation :) Thanks -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santi...@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
