Matthieu, could you please write up a new version of the I-D with your encoding? You might want to speak to Gwendoline, since she needs to write up her TOS-specific encoding.
> If we keep this behaviour and mix tos-specific routes, we will have > to send 4 wildcard requests to have all routes. I see two reasonable > options: > - only keep (legacy) wildcard requests, and reply with a full dump. That's reasonable, although slightly confusing. (Call that (1).) > - send one request with all sub-TLVs you know but without mandatory > bit, and reply to all options you know about. That's not -- it would require allocating a full new set of sub-TLVs. Plus I find this confusing. (Call that (2).) There are two other possibilities: 3. Send a non-specific wildcard request for non-specific routes, a source-specific wildcard request for source-specific routes, etc. 4. Deprecate wildcard requests -- say that they MAY be replied to, but SHOULD NOT be sent by new implementations. Now wildcard requests are fairly rare -- they are only used to speed up convergence at boot time, as well as by debugging tools (although we have no such debugging tools yet -- all debugging tools known to me connect to the local socket of a node). So sending four TLVs in a single unicast packet instead of a single TLV is not prohibitive, and is much simpler than the alternatives. I support (3). Last time I spoke to him, Toke supported (4). I am opposed to (2). I can live with (1). -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users