[Babel-users] [babel] source sub-tlv

[David Schinazi]

I've read draft-boutier-babel-source-specific-02 and I do agree that (3)
isn't that simple to define. However I still do find (1) wasteful.

How about Proposal 5, which I define as:

By default, a vanilla wildcard request triggers a dump of all
regular routes (by regular I mean from the original spec so
not source-specific). We define a new non-mandatory sub-TLV
on Route Requests called "Requested Route Types" that
contains an array of all the types of routes this request is requesting.

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Type = TBD   |    Length     |  RR Type 1    |  RR Type 2...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

We also create a registry of Requested Route (RR) types:
0 = Regular
1 = Source-Specific
2 = TOS-specific
etc.

For example, if you send:
[Type = TBD, Length=2, 0, 1]
it means that you'd like all regular and source-specific routes.

This does make it easy to add new extensions without each extension
knowing about other extensions.

I do realize this is more complex than option (1) but could be worth it
as it reduces overhead of extensions which allows better scalability
in the number of future extensions.

Thoughts?

David Schinazi


> On Jun 19, 2017, at 17:07, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch at irif.fr> wrote:
> 
>>> - only keep (legacy) wildcard requests, and reply with a full dump.
> 
>> That's reasonable, although slightly confusing.  (Call that (1).)
> 
>>  3. Send a non-specific wildcard request for non-specific routes,
>>     a source-specific wildcard request for source-specific routes, etc.
> 
>> I support (3).  Last time I spoke to him, Toke supported (4).  I am
>> opposed to (2).  I can live with (1).
> 
> After looking at the relevant code in babeld, I find that (1) is much
> simpler to implement.
> 
> Matthieu's latest draft (-2) contains a good summary of the discussion.
> 
> -- Juliusz
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Babel-users mailing list
> Babel-users at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/babel-users/attachments/20170620/b426c5de/attachment-0001.html>