On 05/24/2017 03:53 PM, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 08:03:38PM +0200, Dean wrote:
And routes from other protocols with normal IPv6 channels should be
transformed to SADR routes with a ::/0 source?
That is a tricky issue. I see four possibilities:
2) Soma hack to Pipe protocol
Ondrej Zajicek writes:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:27:30PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Ondrej Zajicek writes:
>>
>> >> And routes from other protocols with normal IPv6 channels should be
>> >> transformed to SADR routes with a ::/0 source?
>> >
>> > That is a tricky issue. I see fo
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 08:03:38PM +0200, Dean wrote:
> >>And routes from other protocols with normal IPv6 channels should be
> >>transformed to SADR routes with a ::/0 source?
> >That is a tricky issue. I see four possibilities:
> >
> >2) Soma hack to Pipe protocol that allows to bridge IP6 table
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:27:30PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Ondrej Zajicek writes:
>
> >> And routes from other protocols with normal IPv6 channels should be
> >> transformed to SADR routes with a ::/0 source?
> >
> > That is a tricky issue. I see four possibilities:
> >
> > 1) Some
Ondrej Zajicek writes:
>> And routes from other protocols with normal IPv6 channels should be
>> transformed to SADR routes with a ::/0 source?
>
> That is a tricky issue. I see four possibilities:
>
> 1) Some hack that allows connecting IP6 channels to SADR_IP6 tables,
> so unmodified protocols
On 05/23/2017 07:29 PM, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:27:43PM +0200, Dean wrote:
On 05/23/2017 03:04 PM, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
My opinion is that behavior of OSPF and Kernel protocols should be
consistent. If OSPFv3 uses one channel and one table for SADR and
non-SADR routes,
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:27:43PM +0200, Dean wrote:
> On 05/23/2017 03:04 PM, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> >My opinion is that behavior of OSPF and Kernel protocols should be
> >consistent. If OSPFv3 uses one channel and one table for SADR and
> >non-SADR routes, then Kernel should do the same and the
On 05/23/2017 03:04 PM, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
My opinion is that behavior of OSPF and Kernel protocols should be
consistent. If OSPFv3 uses one channel and one table for SADR and
non-SADR routes, then Kernel should do the same and there is no
reason to connect two Kernel protocols to one kernel t
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:01:35PM +0200, Dean Luga wrote:
> struct static_route {
> diff --git a/sysdep/linux/netlink.c b/sysdep/linux/netlink.c
> index d89ae10..073bf65 100644
> --- a/sysdep/linux/netlink.c
> +++ b/sysdep/linux/netlink.c
> @@ -1937,7 +1937,8 @@ krt_sys_start(struct krt_proto *p)
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 02:17:43PM +0200, Dean wrote:
> >You should add parsing of SADR networks to conf/confbase.Y together with
> >other network types in net_ nonterminal symbol. That would add support
> >of SADR to static procotol automatically.
> >
> >Also, SADR-based recursive routes seems lik
On 05/22/2017 01:57 PM, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:01:35PM +0200, Dean Luga wrote:
From: dean
A new channel, sadr_ip6, is used for SADR both in the kernel
and static protocols. In the static protocol, routes can be
inserted with the following syntax:
route from via "in
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:01:35PM +0200, Dean Luga wrote:
> From: dean
>
> A new channel, sadr_ip6, is used for SADR both in the kernel
> and static protocols. In the static protocol, routes can be
> inserted with the following syntax:
>
> route from via "interface"
> route from recursive
From: dean
A new channel, sadr_ip6, is used for SADR both in the kernel
and static protocols. In the static protocol, routes can be
inserted with the following syntax:
route from via "interface"
route from recursive
There is a bug in the Linux kernel that causes undefined behavior
when bot
13 matches
Mail list logo
