From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x232.google.com (mail-oi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EA4B21F2B5 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:38:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi0-f50.google.com with SMTP id a141so8350081oig.37 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 18:38:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Wc3JIYJCUMdcDQs6Bup/W5syHRlF4w69xoahT/W85fI=; b=PNdNK/jjI2h7vw7X3viOzNB6agK0VmV6sxJPFu6szn2e7HygIs/MqGh9tnehauFp7h h60MAacZ1s/QnMp1dhF/m/QB2Gcu5plmUydlvIF7UID6psNU029MiK12nfoQgqOYsz1H Mo/cgz2ROrST00lL91ClNQu7P5dvcJIHzfbURMT8lesZ25L0BeVgXXAJKpN3PQ6oAUQI 8QRdkQPRF9r/xpWnIUGT97M8k9XOMJqXEYuM6MmTwh9hHtskk48VJZf0CBYELPj1n4Kx AnYDYErvOXrOfQf8k21jgR6j3Z3LE6Nob5UfKWuYQyE2+lBEvZXK5Qhi6Z31zJU2FXD1 YPvw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.136.9 with SMTP id k9mr4384441oid.85.1417487920532; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 18:38:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.227.211 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:38:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <878uiq23vs.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> References: <878uiq23vs.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:38:40 -0800 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Juliusz Chroboczek Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org" , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Babel-users] ipv6 confusion with source specific gateways. X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 02:39:10 -0000 On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >>> default from :: via fe80::201:5cff:ee62:b646 dev ge00 proto static metr= ic >>> 1024 # should I even have a default route at all? >> >> The source on this is actually ::/128 > > You mean ::/0. > >> It is needed for IPv6 packets that originate on the host but where the >> application doesn't specify an address to bind to. > > Yes, it is also needed to ensure interoperability between Babel-S and > stock Babel. (I really wish OpenWRT installed a non-specific route in > that case, by the way.) ? An issue I have had with owrt is that it used route to enter routes, which does not support various tables (like dhcp, or babel-pinger). I think, but am not sure, that netifd in chaos calmer actually calls the routing commands directly now, so that behavior could be more correct. I don't know what udhcp uses... The unreachable syntax was also recently added to netifd, so exporting covering routes has just got easier. see: https://github.com/sbyx/hnetd/issues/23 for details. > > -- Juliusz --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht thttp://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcoming_Talks