[babel] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-07: (with DISCUSS)

Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 05 November 2020 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: babel@ietf.org
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4583A1155; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 17:24:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-babel-source-specific@ietf.org, babel-chairs@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, d3e3e3@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.21.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <160453946202.22882.3587018410396865705@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 17:24:22 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/jJ3GE5LMsYb2AMnAaqZumalJ1Ss>
Subject: [babel] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-07: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 01:24:22 -0000

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-07: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-source-specific/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am concerned about the congestion implications of this architecture. If there
are P prefixes in the network, the number of TLVs exchanged potentially goes
from P to P^2.

Perhaps this is an unrealistic use case. But are there any safeguards in the
protocol against this happening (e.g. limitations on size/freq of updates?) Or
ought there to be some operational guidance to be somewhat selective about
source prefixes?