Re: [Babel-users] Bucket full, dropping packet

Hello! On 08. 12. 2015 17:58, Jernej Kos wrote: > We are still on the lookout for unparsable packets ;-) Got one! Couldn't parse packet (8, 14) from fe80::2ff:1bff:fe10:3d34 on digger1438. Packet dump: 08 0e 01 00 20 00 06 40 32 8e ff ff 0a fe 00 08 Jernej signature.asc Description:

Re: [Babel-users] wanted to map the babel network

Hi! On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Jernej Kos wrote: >>> Yeah, link-local addresses of the current node are not reported by Babel >> >> Do you want me to add that? > > The reason why this would be nice is that it would limit the link-local > addresses to only those which are

Re: [Babel-users] Bucket full, dropping packet

Hi! Hm, I thought that Babel was tested on large networks and that it was tested on simulated large networks? Or are we now the largest network using it and this is why we are getting in all this trouble? So this is just another academic project which looks good on the paper but in practice it is

Re: [Babel-users] Bucket full, dropping packet

> Hm, I thought that Babel was tested on large networks and that it was > tested on simulated large networks? Babel has been tested in one large network (1500 nodes). It took 20 minutes to converge, and worked fine after convergence time. I fixed the initial convergence issues (too many

Re: [Babel-users] Bucket full, dropping packet

> Attaching some more dumps. Thanks, Kosko. These are all IPv4 retractions, and they look just fine to me. I'd need to see the full packet to be sure, but it probably means that there's some ambiguity in the code about handling retractions with no suitable next hop. I'll have a look when I