[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-chroboczek-babel-applicability) 00 01

Network Working Group                                      J. Chroboczek
Internet-Draft                         IRIF, University of Paris-Diderot
Intended status: Informational                           January 5, 2017
Expires: July 9, 2017


              Applicability of the Babel routing protocol
                   draft-ietf-babel-applicability-01

Abstract

   This document describes some application areas where the Babel
   routing protocol (RFC 6126) has been found to be useful.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 9, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.






Chroboczek                Expires July 9, 2017                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Babel Protocol Applicability          January 2017


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Existing successful deployments of Babel  . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  Hybrid networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.2.  Large scale overlay networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.3.  Pure mesh networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.4.  Small unmanaged networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Application Areas where Babel is not recommended  . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Large, stable networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Low-power and constrained networks  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   6.  Informational References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   Babel [RFC6126] is a loop-avoiding distance-vector routing protocol
   that aims to be robust in a variety of environments.

   This document describes a few areas where Babel has been found to be
   useful.  It is structured as follows.  In Section 2, we describe
   application areas where Babel has been successfully deployed, and in
   Section 3, we describe application areas where deployment of Babel is
   not encouraged because better alternatives are available.

2.  Existing successful deployments of Babel

2.1.  Hybrid networks

   Babel is able to deal with both classical, prefix-based ("Internet-
   style") routing and flat ("mesh-style") routing over non-transitive
   link technologies.  Because of that, it has seen a number of
   succesful deployments in medium-sized hybrid networks, networks that
   combine a wired, aggregated backbone with meshy wireless bits at the
   edges.  No other routing protocol known to us is similarly robust and
   efficient in this particular type of network.

2.2.  Large scale overlay networks

   The algorithms used by Babel (loop avoidance, hysteresis, delayed
   updates) allow it to remain stable and efficient in the presence of
   unstable metrics, even in the presence of a feedback loop.  For this
   reason, it has been successfully deployed in large scale overlay
   networks, built out of thousands of tunnels spanning continents,
   where it is used with a metric computed from links' latencies
   [DELAY-BASED].



Chroboczek                Expires July 9, 2017                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Babel Protocol Applicability          January 2017


2.3.  Pure mesh networks

   Babel has been repeatedly shown to be competitive with dedicated
   routing protocols for wireless mesh networks [REAL-WORLD]
   [BRIDGING-LAYERS].  While this particular niche is already served by
   a number of mature protocols, notably OLSR-ETX and OLSRv2 [RFC7181]
   equipped with the DAT metric [RFC7779], Babel has seen a moderate
   amount of successful deployment in pure mesh networks.

2.4.  Small unmanaged networks

   Because of its small size and simple configuration, Babel has been
   deployed in small, unmanaged networks (three to five routers), where
   it serves as a more efficient replacement for RIP [RFC2453], with the
   significant advantage of having good support for wireless links.

3.  Application Areas where Babel is not recommended

   There exist application areas where Babel is a poor fit.

3.1.  Large, stable networks

   Babel relies on periodic updates, and even in a stable network, it
   generates a constant amount of background traffic.  In large, stable,
   well-administered networks, it is preferable to use protocols layered
   above a reliable transport mechanism, such as OSPF [RFC5340], EIGRP
   [RFC7868] or IS-IS [RFC1195].

3.2.  Low-power and constrained networks

   Babel relies on periodic updates and maintains within each node an
   amount of state that is proportional to the number of reachable
   destinations.  In networks containing resource-constrained or
   exteremely low-power nodes, it may be preferable to use a protocol
   that limits the amount of state maintained and propagated; we have
   heard of AODVv2 [AODVv2], RPL [RFC6550] and LOADng [LOADng].

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires no IANA actions.  [RFC Editor: please remove
   this section before publication.]

5.  Security Considerations

   As in all distance-vector routing protocols, a Babel speaker receives
   reachability information from its neighbours, which by default is
   trusted.  A number of attacks are possible if this information is not




Chroboczek                Expires July 9, 2017                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Babel Protocol Applicability          January 2017


   suitably protected, either by a lower-layer mechanism or by an
   extension to the protocol itself (e.g. [RFC7298]).

   Implementors and deployers must be aware of the insecure nature of
   the base protocol, and must take suitable measures to ensure that the
   protocol is deployed as securely as required by the application.

6.  Informational References

   [AODVv2]   Perkins, C., Ratliff, S., Dowdell, J., Steenbrink, L., and
              V. Mercieca, "Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector Version 2
              (AODVv2) Routing", draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-16 (work in
              progress), May 2016.

   [BRIDGING-LAYERS]
              Murray, D., Dixon, M., and T. Koziniec, "An Experimental
              Comparison of Routing Protocols in Multi Hop Ad Hoc
              Networks", Proc. ATNAC 2010, 2010.

   [DELAY-BASED]
              Jonglez, B. and J. Chroboczek, "A delay-based routing
              metric", March 2014, <http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3488>.

   [LOADng]   Clausen, T., Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Niktash, A., Igarashi,
              Y., Satoh, H., Herberg, U., Lavenu, C., Lys, T., and J.
              Dean, "The Lightweight On-demand Ad hoc Distance-vector
              Routing Protocol - Next Generation (LOADng)", draft-
              clausen-lln-loadng-15 (work in progress), January 2017.

   [REAL-WORLD]
              Abolhasan, M., Hagelstein, B., and J. Wang, "Real-world
              performance of current proactive multi-hop mesh
              protocols", Asia-Pacific Conference on Communication 2009,
              2009.

   [RFC1195]  Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
              dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.

   [RFC2453]  Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453, November
              1998.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.

   [RFC6126]  Chroboczek, J., "The Babel Routing Protocol", RFC 6126,
              February 2011.





Chroboczek                Expires July 9, 2017                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Babel Protocol Applicability          January 2017


   [RFC6550]  Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
              Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
              JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
              Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.

   [RFC7181]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
              "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2",
              RFC 7181, April 2014.

   [RFC7298]  Ovsienko, D., "Babel Hashed Message Authentication Code
              (HMAC) Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 7298,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7298, July 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7298>.

   [RFC7779]  Rogge, H. and E. Baccelli, "Directional Airtime Metric
              Based on Packet Sequence Numbers for Optimized Link State
              Routing Version 2 (OLSRv2)", RFC 7779,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7779, April 2016.

   [RFC7868]  Savage, D., Ng, J., Moore, S., Slice, D., Paluch, P., and
              R. White, "Cisco's Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing
              Protocol (EIGRP)", RFC 7868, DOI 10.17487/RFC7868, May
              2016.

Author's Address

   Juliusz Chroboczek
   IRIF, University of Paris-Diderot
   Case 7014
   75205 Paris Cedex 13
   France

   Email: jch@irif.fr


















Chroboczek                Expires July 9, 2017                  [Page 5]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/