[Babel-users] babel topologie

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

> Could the controller build up the topology via route request messages
> (section 3.4.10 of the rfc) unicast with a prefix of 0, instead?

In principle, it could.  But consider what I say in Section 3 of the draft:

   A Babel packet MUST be silently ignored unless [...] its source port
   is the well-known Babel port.

In other words, the current version of Babel will silently ignore any
requests you'll send it unless you send them from the Babel port.

I guess that I could relax this requirement in the case of request
packets.  Does anyone see any reason why that is not a good reason?

                                        Juliusz