>> BTW, are third-party next hops allowed in Babel? I checked RFC 6126
>> but found nothing.
They're not forbidden, but I don't think they are useful. There's no
reason I can see why they wouldn't work, but I haven't actually tested.
> Not sure how babeld will react to non-LL next hop addresses.
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, usin
Ondrej Zajicek writes:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:20:42PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> This adds support for dual-stack v4/v6 operation to the Babel protocol.
>> Routing
>> messages will be exchanged over IPv6, but IPv4 routes can be carried in the
>> messages being exchanged. This
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:20:42PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> This adds support for dual-stack v4/v6 operation to the Babel protocol.
> Routing
> messages will be exchanged over IPv6, but IPv4 routes can be carried in the
> messages being exchanged. This matches how the reference Babel
This adds support for dual-stack v4/v6 operation to the Babel protocol. Routing
messages will be exchanged over IPv6, but IPv4 routes can be carried in the
messages being exchanged. This matches how the reference Babel
implementation (babeld) works.
The nexthop address for v4 can be configured per
