On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:54 PM Juliusz Chroboczek 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
> 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
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:12 PM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>
> > since, what the heck, I have 7 different versions of babel in the lab,
> > I figured why not add in the unicast branch on two boxes and see what
> > else breaks.
>
> The unicast branch is obsolete -- the rfc6126bis branch is based of
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:46 PM Dave Taht wrote:
>
> since, what the heck, I have 7 different versions of babel in the lab,
> I figured why not add in the unicast branch on two boxes and see what
> else breaks.
>
> An oddity, I think, is I see one box making a mh-request unicast, and
> the other
> since, what the heck, I have 7 different versions of babel in the lab,
> I figured why not add in the unicast branch on two boxes and see what
> else breaks.
The unicast branch is obsolete -- the rfc6126bis branch is based of it.
So if you're running rfc6126bis (or nlogn), you're already
since, what the heck, I have 7 different versions of babel in the lab,
I figured why not add in the unicast branch on two boxes and see what
else breaks.
An oddity, I think, is I see one box making a mh-request unicast, and
the other box seems to respond with a mcast (?). Cap here:
