For my example:
A -- B -- C
If I have computer the shortest path to B (from A and C). Then when I
am computing shortest paths to C, I do not need to search any node
behind the B, when I reach B.
Ok, perhaps a more complex example will clarify things:
A -- B -- C -- D
The shortest path
Hi!
But is this really Bellman-Ford algorithm? Because Bellman-Ford is a
single-source algorithm and Babel in fact computes (distributed)
all-source algorithm? Or you see Babel as an Bellman-Ford run multiple
times, for each source ones? Because it is not really that as it
reuses data it has
Hi!
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
Because it is not really that as it reuses data it has about paths to
other nodes.
No, it doesn't.
How not? If you have such topology:
A -- B -- C
When B runs its run then it learns the shortest path towards
Hi, Mitar.
Does Babel require bidirectional reachability?
Yes, although routing is not necessarily symmetric.
In Cost Computation section it is written that if the txcost is
infinite, then the cost is infinite so probably this means such links
are seen as non-existent (worst cost).
No, you
even for such simple graph as:
A c B
there is not luck for me, as B cannot tell to the A that it received
the message from it
Right.
So how B tells A this? If I understand only with IHUs? Which are sent
only directly?
Right.
So if there is a bad link backwards this could make
Hi!
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
If you get me in touch with people who are actually interested in
putting Babel on such a network, I'll be glad to work on the issue. I'm
willing to generalise from a single example, but I'm not going to try to
Hi!
I admit I have still not read the whole Babel's draft but I am
skipping from sections to sections as I find them interesting.
Does Babel require bidirectional reachability? In draft I read that
Babel tries to determine bidirectional reachability, but I was not
sure if this means only such
Ciao Saverio,
I'm trying to test (again) AHCP on OpenWRT.
Great.
it was only IPv6, and it was completely stateless without server/clients.
That was AHCP 0. It was a very clean and very robust protocol.
I later tried to generalise the AHCP 0 design to stateful configuration
(AHCP 0.5), and
Am 15.01.2010 um 08:18 schrieb Gabriel Kerneis:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 07:20:00PM +0100, ZioPRoTo (Saverio Proto)
wrote:
1) AHCP is a stand alone program, so does not depend on olsr or
babel,
so its configuration is autonomous, correct ?
Yes.
In openwrt I expect to configure
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:42:00AM +0100, Alex Morlang wrote:
the ahcp-config.sh should be updated to use uci states to set ip
addresses, as right now, the settings will not survive any actions
of luci/uci. [...]
you also need to address uci sections out of the script, so something
like
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:42:00AM +0100, Alex Morlang wrote:
the ahcp-config.sh should be updated to use uci states to set ip
addresses, as right now, the settings will not survive any actions
of luci/uci.
On second thought, I'm not sure this is such a good idea: is the
address you grab from
Am 15.01.2010 um 13:34 schrieb Gabriel Kerneis:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:42:00AM +0100, Alex Morlang wrote:
the ahcp-config.sh should be updated to use uci states to set ip
addresses, as right now, the settings will not survive any actions
of luci/uci.
On second thought, I'm not sure this
Hello,
I'm trying to test (again) AHCP on OpenWRT.
I say again because I used AHCP in a little testebed about 18 months
ago. The configuration was in a .dat file living in:
/usr/lib/ahcp/ahcp.dat
and it was only IPv6, and it was completely stateless without server/clients.
It all worked very
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 07:20:00PM +0100, ZioPRoTo (Saverio Proto) wrote:
1) AHCP is a stand alone program, so does not depend on olsr or babel,
so its configuration is autonomous, correct ?
Yes.
In openwrt I expect to configure everything in /etc/conf/ahcp
The relevant files are
14 matches
Mail list logo
