Re: [babel] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-07: (with DISCUSS)

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> Thu, 05 November 2020 11:53 UTC

Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
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 8E9913A178E; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 03:53:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk
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 v9WJPVhB284L; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 03:53:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [45.145.95.4]) (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 29D3D3A1762; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 03:53:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1604577195; bh=ds8NYESpwEsNTDF6lK5Oa1TYYRB4vnepdVGq17O234U=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=ndykGdixzWCq20eRmw7HTr8MNLo6haZ+rZvWCwSneqJ/w+6qXmVDlYLKdx+60a/Wz 5cHPnsHWSzM2dJlVJ1pRLkoHWt22khK8R/o4aZdo9Mp+1yamO7q79uhHXSKfJ+naWt +AVcj2a+tN4571tpjrux+NkJPGlBdQLj1fclWth9CSNnYI6xwXU6DEMEbyJtL8SCDD WYh0ADJ91gcKtA6DKvMxMr+9xcTbcqLsgReOCifRHct03WARCt6lyfCLBAu46dPcrk Wv6BDpJOFpHL/2gQywko9TVJeDhmB5u/WQs4rSjckoRmsM8kb8LVe97Mru8HKUVYJa IqLWA5/HFJBZg==
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: babel-chairs@ietf.org, d3e3e3@gmail.com, babel@ietf.org, draft-ietf-babel-source-specific@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <160453946202.22882.3587018410396865705@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <160453946202.22882.3587018410396865705@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 12:53:15 +0100
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87k0v0t3ys.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/5a4u0zcKsPUQB28Db57iJ0YGeIs>
Subject: Re: [babel] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-07: (with DISCUSS)
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 11:53:28 -0000

Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> writes:

> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-07: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-source-specific/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I am concerned about the congestion implications of this architecture. If there
> are P prefixes in the network, the number of TLVs exchanged potentially goes
> from P to P^2.
>
> Perhaps this is an unrealistic use case. But are there any safeguards in the
> protocol against this happening (e.g. limitations on size/freq of updates?) Or
> ought there to be some operational guidance to be somewhat selective about
> source prefixes?

The way it's been used in deployments that I'm aware of, generally only
default routes are distributed with a source prefix, and more specific
routes internally to the network do not have source prefixes. See my
reply to Alvaro for a fuller example:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/7_O-b6bN525EonbZu0cf6_hIjKU/

-Toke