[babel] v4viav6: retractions

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Fri, 09 April 2021 15:27 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 585923A24D8 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 08:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 RSdYyDr2Kobh for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 08:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
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 AE01A3A24D7 for <babel@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 08:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
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/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id 139FROQx008849 for <babel@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 17:27:24 +0200
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC26FE4F1 for <babel@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 17:27:24 +0200 (CEST)
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 rJ41XQEAK9Ay for <babel@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 17:27:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44E79FE4EE for <babel@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 17:27:22 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 17:27:21 +0200
Message-ID: <875z0vo4va.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: babel@ietf.org
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/27.1 Mule/6.0
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, 09 Apr 2021 17:27:24 +0200 (CEST)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 6070725C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 6070725C.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 : 6070725C.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/iItK89HHAyaXy-heotW7A0ni6DI>
Subject: [babel] v4viav6: retractions
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: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 15:27:30 -0000

The current text of v4viav6 is only correct for finite metric updates.
I need to add some wording for retractions.

My current preference is to allow v4viav6 retractions, and treat them as
equivalent to v4 retractions (since the next hop is not needed for
retractions).  The alternative is to say that retractions MUST be sent as
v4, and that v4viav6 retractions MUST be silently ignored, SHOULD be
silently ignored, or something.

Is there any good reason why v4viav6 retractions should not be allowed?

-- Juliusz