Hi! I think that putting routes of both routing protocols in the same table gets really messy and hard to debug. And prevents any policy routing rules we might want to apply.
Mitar On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote: >> Then we can have the following order of routing tables on routers: >> >> babel >> olsr >> babel_default >> olsr_default > > Mitar, > > I'll be glad to implement the hack that you require, but let's please > think whether we can manage to avoid it. What's wrong with putting both > OLSR and Babel routes into a single table, and using a higher kernel > priority for OLSR routes? If you do that, the most-specific rule will > cause host routes to be preferred to default routes, and the kernel > priority will be used to prefer routes from one routing protocol to the > ones from the other when they have equal specificity. > > Babeld's kernel priority can be tuned using the "kernel-priority" config > file directive. I have no idea whether something similar can be done with > olsrd. Henning? > > -- Juliusz -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
