Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@toke.dk> writes: > Andreas Rammhold <andr...@rammhold.de> writes: > >> This implements [draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6] an IPv4 via IPv6 extension >> to the Babel routing protocol that allows annoncing routes to an IPv4 >> prefix with an IPv6 next-hop, which makes it possible for IPv4 traffic >> to flow through interfaces that have not been assigned an IPv4 address. >> >> The implementation is compatible with the current Babeld version (the >> relevant changes can be seen in the [babeld PR]). I've verified this >> with a few VMs in the following setup: >> >> Bird <- v4 only -> Bird <- v6 only -> Babeld <- v4 only -> Babeld >> >> Each routing daemon was running on their own VM and had L2 connectivity >> to only its direct neighbors. At the nodes at the edges v4 networks have >> been announced and full end-to-end communication was possible over the >> mixed AF network. The v6 only link between Babel and Bird (at the >> "center" of the above setup) did transport the v4 packets via the v6 >> link-local next hop addresses just as expected. >> >> Thanks to Toke Høiland-Jørgensen for early review on this work. >> >> [draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6]: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6/ >> [babeld PR]: https://github.com/jech/babeld/pull/56 > > Thank you for the respin! Code LGTM; only comment is that it would be > nice if the documentation was changed to refer to the proper RFC number > instead of draft-ieft-babel-v4viav6; but that can be fixed up when > applying (after the number gets assigned hopefully soonish).
Agreed. > > Also, one small nit regarding the comment you left in: > >> + /* >> + * When receiving requests, AEs 1 (IPv4) and 4 (v4-via-v6) MUST be >> + * treated in the same manner: the receiver processes the request as >> + * described in Section 3.8 of [RFC6126bis]. If an Update is sent, then >> + * it MAY be sent with AE 1 or 4, as described in Section 2.1 above, >> + * irrespective of which AE was used in the request. >> + */ > > This is a bit long, especially when repeated in two places; also the ref > to RFC6126bis is outdated. But maybe just shorten it to: > > /* RFCXXXX section 2.3: When receiving requests, AEs 1 (IPv4) and 4 > * (v4-via-v6) MUST be treated in the same manner. > */ Agreed. @Maintainers: let me know if you want me to do these minor modifications (once we have the required information) or if you are fine applying those. Regards, Andi
