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

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Wed, 08 January 2020 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 9D1E212004A for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 22:53:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=inf-net-nl.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 ppo_TWblDQx0 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 22:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x235.google.com (mail-lj1-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0A82120043 for <babel@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 22:53:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x235.google.com with SMTP id w1so2171596ljh.5 for <babel@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 22:53:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inf-net-nl.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=43taIYBMlnT8gzfVGog+teb1kx1j3l362t6gvvF24MU=; b=Hd+vrtcbIlOmCCP0mfKrKV23UrZULygFy4zbPryN1LR2CBdjtvRPD95YGG8mKHtCu5 VpiuSBRumlReKZSnfCFCSzIRC/jAX+EzD8oMnMz6OJJRdvQ5oYLQy+ajGQ9UX/V/lrvk RJTSSGzzOhWs9WDP+c08ki1G0As6bI2NkRebqnqVIcFAd/Bl4ndQUPINRWt/VHPUP4U/ Iu0Aw6fzUZRgrrL4bqIHAeq5ZDAOj1dqnNpThl/z5gzFqwGyw9f3DBMaFXhavLkKpwGi tvXjrgeahY34AiCaJAbyqb+Pk5cONBMIMaGC37b1IIG2aDZwVb/6FLYuOWEtttc9YhPu UkWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=43taIYBMlnT8gzfVGog+teb1kx1j3l362t6gvvF24MU=; b=bhZwU/ScICEV+yVRgl/u+BU6GU/6nDb75RoimB8X8HtxCjJP5OuHCQys442dBhF0Ry Bd2wTcaQwa4vrOaYKfNcfKEJStnZJ/JA00nuzgR3xANBqiQLkZztevI+hWdSKkgD70ab oWCNLFBf9WaYiF2IaAr37gbLiaMk1r/GfK6jjiZ7/z/6ycuxSMdb7h98SEJtQqksgNKa ZnuV5HCRQVXLSZmS8E1kH4/E0+oEmgljDl1TGJwvvtlAMX9lJUf7mcAY5OsY3scw0fcl 4jWV3Ghxuna7ZHSt6cqIPwYh+NYP0d03j3kRryfJNrtfJEkWCSeIPZiJNsjhHjII6/mz Buyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU/0Oj4r2C4YbX5IS5AsCLdfKzaZ5IPwDq8VKJ+LBEoh4zVo7aM vLSOvfvWjJzfADqgSW8pHbndQQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqweOKEiEOHKjCf2mSNTyOCzvZUQ9RLDmiuDeQSss/xlxeZHnA0aYTysb1Uz7Cj+MEM0/fwJGA==
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8651:: with SMTP id i17mr1928689ljj.121.1578466382755; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 22:53:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.87.0.51] ([145.15.244.17]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t1sm728538lji.98.2020.01.07.22.52.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Jan 2020 22:53:01 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <87tv56x07t.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 07:52:54 +0100
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis@ietf.org>, Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <06AA3BD8-391A-4B38-A40A-1896DFC4D836@inf-net.nl>
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> <87lfra9a2s.wl-jch@irif.fr> <35766A70-6E3D-4216-B559-811F6B3FB46F@kuehlewind.net> <87r212n59b.wl-jch@irif.fr> <63DE7522-7FFF-49F4-9126-A2C4B66596B4@kuehlewind.net> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6115372A0DD@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <FDF8068F-3A71-4FE9-A24F-A2C39B94119B@kuehlewind.net> <87sgkrtriw.wl-jch@irif.fr> <019A54A0-5414-4D3E-8DC3-294CE7F9E774@inf-net.nl> <87tv56x07t.wl-jch@irif.fr>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/GKTckJ4V-ivUm2czOq1azlk5p0A>
Subject: Re: [babel] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf?= =?utf-8?q?-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: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 06:53:08 -0000


> Op 8 jan. 2020, om 01:26 heeft Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> 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