Ondrej Zajicek <santiago@crfreenet.org> writes:
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 04:57:43PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
What, we have to be nice to the users now? ;)
Fair enough, I'll add support for both types of channels. Should it be possible to connect the same instance to both an ipv6 and and ipv6_sadr channel type, or is it OK to enforce that there's only one of those active?
It is OK to enforce that there is only one of those active. How non-SADR-aware Babel should handle SADR routes? Is it mandatory sub-TLV, so they are ignored; or optional sub-TLV, so they are handled as regular routes?
It's mandatory, otherwise you can get routing loops. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-03#section-6 I figure the packet parser needs to be aware of whether it is configured to support SADR routes and drop all source-specific updates if not... -Toke