[Babel-users] Version 1.6.0

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch at pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> writes:

>> If this is not the case, I think the RFC needs to specify what,
>> exactly, is meant by a "wildcard address". I've always thought of
>> ::/0 as the wildcard address; and doesn't "default route" also mean
>> "wildcard route"?
>
> Wow, no.

Yes, feel free to marvel at my ignorance ;)

> For example, a request for 2000::/3 requests an update for 2000::/3.
> If a router has routers for 2000::/4 and 3000::/4 but no route for
> 2000::/3, it must not use the longer prefixes to satisfy a request for
> 2000::/3 -- from the router's point of view, there's no relation
> between the prefixes.

That I did know.

> AE 0 is used to mean "any" in the following circumstances:
>
>   - IHU (where it represents "any" interface identifier);
>   - non-seqno request (where it represents "any" prefix);
>   - retraction (where it represents "any" prefix).
>
> It is not allowed in any other place -- in other places, RFC 6126 says
> that AE MUST NOT be 0. (There's an omission in Section 4.4.9, where it
> only says in what case AE MAY be 0; the implication is that it MUST
> NOT be 0 in other cases.)

Hmm, maybe this should be spelled out somewhere? Otherwise you'll just
have problems with people unfamiliar with such basic constructs of
routing protocols trying to implement the protocol; who knows where that
might lead? :)

> If we decide to make an incompatible revision of Babel, I might decide
> to remove AE 0. While it seemed like a good idea at the time, it's
> turned out to only be moderately useful -- the retraction case can be
> handled by announcing a Hell interval of 10ms (which causes the
> neighbour to drop after 0.16s), and the other uses are not useful.

Fine with me :)

-Toke