Re: [babel] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Tue, 17 December 2019 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jch@irif.fr>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEBAC12007C; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:43:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VT0uZwusp043; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:43:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 635531201DB; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:43:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id xBHGhdvN010166 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:43:39 +0100
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/82085) with ESMTP id xBHGhcbM013679; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:43:38 +0100
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1366CA8376; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:43:42 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id eaD7ymQ6Uz9R; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:43:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from lanthane.irif.fr (unknown [172.23.36.89]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89638A8374; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:43:39 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:43:39 +0100
Message-ID: <87lfra9a2s.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis@ietf.org, babel-chairs <babel-chairs@ietf.org>, Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <89C41AAF-B019-4872-9AED-278D6FE7EE0E@kuehlewind.net>
References: <156517737995.8257.5538554979559246700.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <877e7m8b88.wl-jch@irif.fr> <1A2B2C1B-1536-4E75-A8D7-C5612FB8AEDA@kuehlewind.net> <87imqzu1vc.wl-jch@irif.fr> <0C555879-5AF3-487F-A65D-95918A546783@kuehlewind.net> <87imomknn0.wl-jch@irif.fr> <B3A7583A-B4DE-4CE5-A74D-0D4C22FABD83@kuehlewind.net> <160C625D-866B-40D3-8549-7E714F8F8E9B@kuehlewind.net> <CAPDSy+6c_WxJ+KoT5uJZG=xCMomDgOukLXHdseQ10yL_+MGyiA@mail.gmail.com> <89C41AAF-B019-4872-9AED-278D6FE7EE0E@kuehlewind.net>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:43:39 +0100 (CET)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:43:38 +0100 (CET)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5DF905BB.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5DF905BA.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5DF905BB.000 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5DF905BA.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5DF905BB.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5DF905BA.001 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/0V_NVQ4Ej9tsWQvTUt1gZ5XcEXc>
Subject: Re: [babel] =?iso-8859-1?q?Mirja_K=FChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ie?= =?iso-8859-1?q?tf-babel-rfc6126bis-12=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:43:47 -0000

Dear Mirja,

> I keep pointing at RFC8085 because that’s what the IETF agreed to be
> “safe” in the general case.

I refer you to my mail of 9 August 2019, where I reply to almost exactly
the same statement.  RFC 8085 discusses what is considered recommended for
protocols that run over the Internet.  To witness:

   Internet paths can have widely varying characteristics, including
   transmission delays, available bandwidths, congestion levels,
   reordering probabilities, supported message sizes, or loss rates.
   Furthermore, the same Internet path can have very different
   conditions over time.

In Babel, like in OSPF, there is no "Internet path" involved -- there is
just an association between two direct neighbours (from the point of view
of layer 3).  It is therefore my opinion -- already stated in my mail of
August 9 --, that obeying the recommendations in RFC 8085 is not required
for Babel to become PS.

In the same mail of 9 August 2019, I make the claim that there is no
mechanism related to RFC 8085 in RFC 5340.  In other words, it would
appear that you are holding Babel to a much higher standard than OSPFv.

If that is the case, then I request that you state explicitly why you
think that Babel must be held to a much higher standard than OSPFv3.  If
that is not the case, then please clear your discuss.

> Currently the document proposes some values but it does not discuss in
> which scenario these values are appropriate to use (or when they are not
> appropriate to use anymore).

Appendix B gives values that are suggested for implementations.

> If you have that experience it should be possible to e.g. to describe
> the network scenario that you used babel in and give the values that
> have been used in that scenario. What are those scenarios?

The first set of parameters in Appendix B gives the values that are used
by recent versions of babeld (the reference implementation of Babel) and
that have been used in production for many years in a wide range of
networks, including wifi meshes, wired networks, and large community
networks consisting of a complex mixture of wireless and wired links.
These scenarios are described in the Applicability statement.

-- Juliusz