[Babel-users] Anybody else seeing disruption when restarting babeld?y

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

>> Of course, if there are no feasible routes to a given destination, then
>> the neighbours will perform an end-to-end search for a loop-free route,
>> but that's the neghbours' problem, not ours.

> I can't say I agree with the "their problem" mentality. The way I see it
> during graceful shutdown we're still responsible for in-flight traffic
> anyway.

What I mean is that after our neighbours receive our retraction, they'll no
longer be sending traffic to us, whether they have a feasible route or not.

If you're really keen on avoiding disruptions, you should first increase
the metric to something very lare (say, 2^15), then wait a couple of
seconds, then send a retraction, then wait 200ms.  But I think that's too
much hassle, I like your current approach better.

> In my mind it doesn't matter if babeld takes 500ms or 15sec to shutdown if
> that buys me a rock solid network.

I think the default should be 300ms or so.

> The note about the ACKs was simply supposed to be reasoning for why an
> ad-hoc delay rather than having neighbours ACK the retractions.
> 
>>   - should the granularity be lower?  A second for local signalling is
>>     a lot, I'd expect 300ms to be enough in most cases;

> I have no problem changing it to millisecond granularity if that suits you?

Please.

-- Juliusz