[Babel-users] unicast branch test

[Dave Taht]

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:54 PM Juliusz Chroboczek <jch at irif.fr> wrote:
>
> > ah, ok, so the nlogn branch I've been running was derived from the
> > unicast branch?  which in turn was derived from the rfc-bis branch? and
> > I've been running that all along?
>
> The other way around (unicast branched into rfc6126bis which branched into
> xroute-nlogn), but yes.
>
> > So all that's left is hmac? and dtls?
>
> No decision has been taken yet.  I'm rather keen on merging HMAC (since we
> took a lot of care with Clara and Weronika to make it easy to merge).

I had tried that sometime in the past week, there was only one
conflict I could not easily
resolve.

It would be so great for all this to land and then mattheiu's datum
idea to go in...

>
> I'm a little more hesitant as to DTLS.  On the one hand, it requires some
> changes to the core of Babel, on the other hand, most of the work has been
> done already (DTLS is why we wrote the unicast code in the first place).

Well, my own goal with unicast was to get vastly better wifi rates for
route transfers,
and also fq_codel will hand it its own queue, so multicast hellos go
out without HOL blocking.

I'm glad you found another motivation.

> I guess it depends on how aggressive Antonin will want to be ;-)
>
> > I added default unicast true to one of those boxes, and yea! lots of unicast!
> > lots of ns solicit and response. Route transfers. over unicast.
>
> I'll be listening.

The only thing I've noticed in the cap thus far is that I'd set

default enable-timestamps true unicast true

and there are no timestamps in the multicast hello according to wireshark.

btw, is there an updated tcpdump or wireshark for the newer subtlvs?

>
> -- Juliusz



-- 

Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-205-9740