> I still do find (1) wasteful. I really would like to feel your intuition. From my point of view:
- either you'll have very few some-specific routes, in which case the waste is negligible (isn't it the case of multihomed networks ?), - or you'll have so much some-specific routes that non-specific routers will be almost useless (and so you'll have to update them). > (3) isn't that simple to define. > How about Proposal 5, which I define as: > > By default, a vanilla wildcard request triggers a dump of all > regular routes (by regular I mean from the original spec so > not source-specific). We define a new non-mandatory sub-TLV > on Route Requests called "Requested Route Types" that > contains an array of all the types of routes this request is requesting. You need to say that routes resulting in a combination of extensions are sent if each type of the extension is understood. (and if the node understand such combination, but this is straightforward). > 0 = Regular > 1 = Source-Specific > 2 = TOS-specific > etc. > > For example, if you send: > [Type = TBD, Length=2, 0, 1] > it means that you'd like all regular and source-specific routes. and if you send [type = RRT, length=2, 1, 2], it means that you'd like source-specific routes, ToS-routes and source-tos-routes. Of course, if the requesting node doesn't understand the combination, it might receive a some wasteful routes... And, even if state is evil, this request can be encoded as the following by requesting that wildcard requests are combined in the whole message. [Wildcard Route Request + source-specific sub-TLV] [Wildcard Route Request + ToS-specific sub-TLV] In the babeld code, I would just put an int to handle that... Does this make a 6th proposition ? > Thoughts? Summary: 1. Put one Wildcard Route Request (WRR). May waste routes. No parser state. 3. Put one WRR per extension and per combinations. No wasted routes. No parser state. 5. Define a new sub-TLV with one field per extension. Send understood combinations. Might waste routes. No parser state. 6. Put one WRR per extension. Send understood combinations. Might waste routes. Have a parser state (an int is clearly sufficient). I think I prefer 6 over 5. (My preferences are: 1 < 6 < 5 < 3). Matthieu _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users