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

[Teco Boot <[e-mail]>]

> Op 8 jan. 2020, om 01:26 heeft Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 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.

I know and I agree.
So please try to finish this work.


>> 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.

There is nothing on timers. OK, the rfc6126bis suggested timers make sense. 
But how can a homenet device vendor know to select one of the use cases? 
I also think the guidance for link costs for homenets has too much freedom.
IMHO, for Homenets, all of this needs strict rules.
But this is out of topic here.

I only wanted to suggest that there are other and better places to define the protocol 
parameters. This could help to close this discussion.
 

Teco


> -- Juliusz