On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:18:34PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> So what events cause a neighbour to go away / come back as far as the
> bird core is concerned? Is it just the obvious case of the interface
> going up/down and gaining or losing addresses? Or is there something
> smarter?
Y
Hi Ondrej,
Using the old RIP protocol implementation as a basis is a problem - that
code has several design problems, some of these seems to be shared by the
Babel code. Not to mention its idiosyncratic coding conventions are far
from ones used in the rest of BIRD. We are currently finishing rew
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen writes:
>> It is true that this part is probably not described anywhere in depth.
>> There are some notes in nest/protocol.h that are not propagated to the
>> documentation. For the rest, you can use the source, but sometimes
>> even the source is 'wrong'.
>
> Will poke aro
> For my own education, why blackhole the route rather than simply not
> propagate it at all to the FIB (i.e. ignore it)?
Please see RFC 6126 Section 2.8:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6126#section-2.8
-- Juliusz
On 25 Aug 2015, at 19:34, Juliusz Chroboczek
wrote:
> Yes. Babel is designed to be robust not only on wired networks (where
> OSPF and IS-IS work just fine), but also on wireless mesh networks, where
> a routing loop, even a transient one, causes cross-link interference and
> may prevent the r
>> BTW, the argumentation in 3.5.5 of RFC 6126 seems a bit strange to me.
>> It essentially says that unreachable routes are added to avoid transient
>> routing loops before Babel converges. But transient routing loops until
>> convergence is a common behavior for IGPs (both RIP, OSPF and IS-IS do
Ondrej Zajicek writes:
>> > Also note that unreachable routing entries should not be propagated to
>> > core.
>>
>> This is actually done to satisfy a requirement of the Babel protocol:
>> Temporary blackholing is used to avoid routing loops. Quoting section
>> 3.5.5 of RFC6126:
>> ...
>> Now, i
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 03:01:05PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > Also note that unreachable routing entries should not be propagated to
> > core.
>
> This is actually done to satisfy a requirement of the Babel protocol:
> Temporary blackholing is used to avoid routing loops. Quoting sec
Ondrej Zajicek writes:
> Hi, i am finally sending the first batch of comments. This time it is
> mostly general comments.
Thank you very much for the comments. I have a few follow-up questions
(below), but will otherwise revise the implementation accordingly and
resubmit :)
> The proper approa
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:06:03PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> The implementation is currently IPv6-only (since Bird does not support
> mixed IPv4/6 protocols in the same instance), but is otherwise complete
> as far as MUSTs in the RFC is concerned, with one exception: The RFC
> specifi
The implementation is currently IPv6-only (since Bird does not support
mixed IPv4/6 protocols in the same instance), but is otherwise complete
as far as MUSTs in the RFC is concerned, with one exception: The RFC
specifies that jitter must be applied to packet transmission times. This
implementation
11 matches
Mail list logo
