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

[Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]>]

Hi Teco,

> This is in line with for example the OSPF RFCs.
> But for unmanaged networks, good advice from an authority is almost mandatory.

The advice is already there, it's in Appendix B, and it's referenced at
all the relevant points in the document.  However, Babel is designed so
that the exact values don't matter, so it's merely advice, not a recommendation.

That the exact values don't matter is the whole point of Babel -- it's
designed to interoperate in the presence of asymmetric configuration,
which is why it's useful in community and unmanaged networks.  If we start
recommending a default set of values, we obfuscate this fact, at which
point we're no longer communicating clearly why Babel might, in some
deployments, be a good alternative to OSPF.

I've repeatedly explained this back in August, but apparently wasn't clear
enough.

> For Homenets, this could be draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile.

Homenet-babel-profile goes further than that -- it defines the set of
extensions required in order to implement Homenet routing (MUST IPv6,
SHOULD IPv4, MUST source-specific routing), and it defines the
interactions between HNCP and Babel.

-- Juliusz