[Babel-users] the routing atomic update wet paint - because *I* care

[Matthieu Boutier]

> If you work with atomic route replacement even putting ALL of them
> into a netlink message (or as many as you can fit in) works.

What I understand is that we can't (in general) work with atomic
*next-hop* replacement (interface index and metric may change).

I proposed a workaround where instead of using two distinct messages
for "del(r)" and "add(r)" we use one message with "del(r); add(r)".
Even if it's not necessarily atomic (is it?), it should be faster
(only one system call, since it was what frightened Dave).

Matthieu