[babel] Summary of my comments about Sandy's talk

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Fri, 18 November 2016 05:18 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 13F71129706 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:18:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 et7qbA4gsij4 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:18:32 -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 6D8DF1295FA for <babel@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id uAI5IUuY023898; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 06:18:30 +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 0D13ED7ACD; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 06:18:30 +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 qdwFemiinOCc; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 06:18:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from trurl.irif.fr (col75-1-78-194-40-74.fbxo.proxad.net [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5FB82D7973; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 06:18:28 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 06:18:31 +0100
Message-ID: <87r369jrh4.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: babel@ietf.org
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Fri, 18 Nov 2016 06:18:30 +0100 (CET)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 582E8F26.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 582E8F26.000 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 : 582E8F26.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/Uk1PRb97lzW45RPo_gzRWrgPI58>
Cc: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn, prz@juniper.net
Subject: [babel] Summary of my comments about Sandy's talk
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 05:18:34 -0000

I'd be thrilled to work on BIER in Babel.  Babel claims that it is
a flexible protocol, and getting BIER to work in Babel would be an
opportunity to prove this claim.

I do however have some concerns about draft-zhang-bier-babel-extensions-00.
First, the encoding does not fit Babel's extension mechanism for two reasons:
it speaks about a transitive, optional sub-TLV, and Babel does not have
these bits.  Depending on the intended semantics, this extension should be
encoded either as a sub-TLV of the Update TLV, as a sub-TLV of the
Router-Id TLV, as a new TLV, or as an Update TLV with a new AE.  I believe
I have an opinion, but I'm not sure.

Second, this version of the draft only speaks about the packet format --
it doesn't describe the semantics of the data, it doesn't say what an
implementation actually does with the extra data.  I'm going to do some
reading about BIER (Pierre, fancy a beer at some point?), but I'd
appreciate some references.

(Side note: what requirements does BIER make on the topology?  Are
non-transitive (meshy) links fine?)

Finally, I think this work only makes sense if people are serious about
building a prototype.  I'll be glad to help.

-- Juliusz