< draft-ietf-babel-applicability-05.txt   draft-ietf-babel-applicability-06.txt >
Network Working Group J. Chroboczek Network Working Group J. Chroboczek
Internet-Draft IRIF, University of Paris-Diderot Internet-Draft IRIF, University of Paris-Diderot
Intended status: Informational November 14, 2018 Intended status: Informational April 26, 2019
Expires: May 18, 2019 Expires: October 28, 2019
Applicability of the Babel routing protocol Applicability of the Babel routing protocol
draft-ietf-babel-applicability-05 draft-ietf-babel-applicability-06
Abstract Abstract
Babel is a routing protocol based on the distance-vector algorithm Babel is a routing protocol based on the distance-vector algorithm
augmented with mechanisms for loop avoidance and starvation augmented with mechanisms for loop avoidance and starvation
avoidance. In this document, we argue that there exist niches where avoidance. In this document, we argue that there exist niches where
Babel is useful and that are not adequately served by more mature Babel is useful and that are not adequately served by more mature
protocols. protocols.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 18, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 28, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 21 skipping to change at page 2, line 21
2.2. Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Successful deployments of Babel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Successful deployments of Babel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Hybrid networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Hybrid networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Large scale overlay networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Large scale overlay networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Pure mesh networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3. Pure mesh networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Small unmanaged networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4. Small unmanaged networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction and background 1. Introduction and background
Babel [RFC6126bis] is a routing protocol based on the familiar Babel [RFC6126bis] is a routing protocol based on the familiar
distance-vector algorithm (sometimes known as distributed Bellman- distance-vector algorithm (sometimes known as distributed Bellman-
Ford) augmented with mechanisms for loop avoidance (there is no Ford) augmented with mechanisms for loop avoidance (there is no
"counting to infinity") and starvation avoidance. In this document, "counting to infinity") and starvation avoidance. In this document,
skipping to change at page 6, line 37 skipping to change at page 6, line 37
3. Successful deployments of Babel 3. Successful deployments of Babel
In this section, we give a few examples of environments where Babel In this section, we give a few examples of environments where Babel
has been successfully deployed. has been successfully deployed.
3.1. Hybrid networks 3.1. Hybrid networks
Babel is able to deal with both classical, prefix-based ("Internet- Babel is able to deal with both classical, prefix-based ("Internet-
style") routing and flat ("mesh-style") routing over non-transitive style") routing and flat ("mesh-style") routing over non-transitive
link technologies. Because of that, it has seen a number of link technologies. Because of that, it has seen a number of
succesful deployments in medium-sized hybrid networks, networks that successful deployments in medium-sized hybrid networks, networks that
combine a wired, aggregated backbone with meshy wireless bits at the combine a wired, aggregated backbone with meshy wireless bits at the
edges. No other routing protocol known to us is similarly robust and edges. No other routing protocol known to us is similarly robust and
efficient in this particular kind of topology. efficient in this particular kind of topology.
Efficient operation in hybrid networks requires the implementation to Efficient operation in hybrid networks requires the implementation to
distinguish wired and wireless links, and to perform link quality distinguish wired and wireless links, and to perform link quality
estimation on wireless links. estimation on wireless links.
3.2. Large scale overlay networks 3.2. Large scale overlay networks
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 skipping to change at page 7, line 39
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA actions. [RFC Editor: please remove This document requires no IANA actions. [RFC Editor: please remove
this section before publication.] this section before publication.]
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
As is the case in all distance-vector routing protocols, a Babel As is the case in all distance-vector routing protocols, a Babel
speaker receives reachability information from its neighbours, which speaker receives reachability information from its neighbours, which
by default is trusted. A number of attacks are possible if this by default is trusted by all nodes in the routing domain.
information is not 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 In most deployments, the Babel protocol is run over a network that is
the base protocol, and must take suitable measures to ensure that the secured either at the physical layer (e.g., physically protecting
protocol is deployed as securely as required by the application. Ethernet sockets) or at the link layer (using a protocol such as WiFi
Protected Access (WPA2)). If Babel is being run over an unprotected
network, then the routing traffic needs to be protected using a
sufficiently strong cryptographic mechanism.
At the time of writing, two such mechanisms have been defined.
Babel-HMAC [HMAC] is a simple and easy to implement mechanism that
only guarantees authenticity and integrity of the routing traffic,
and only supports symmetric keying with a small number of keys
(typically just one or two), but is invulnerable to replay even in
the absence of persistent state. Babel-DTLS [DTLS] is a more complex
mechanism, that requires some minor changes to be made to a typical
Babel implementation and depends on a DTLS stack being available, but
inherits all of the features of DTLS, notably confidentiality and the
ability to use asymmetric keys.
Due to its simplicity, Babel-HMAC should be the preferred security
mechanism in most deployments, with Babel-DTLS available for networks
that require its additional features.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC6126bis] [RFC6126bis]
Chroboczek, J. and D. Schinazi, "The Babel Routing Chroboczek, J. and D. Schinazi, "The Babel Routing
Protocol", Internet Draft draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-07, Protocol", Internet Draft draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-07,
November 2018. November 2018.
6.2. Informational References 6.2. Informational References
[AODVv2] Perkins, C., Ratliff, S., Dowdell, J., Steenbrink, L., and [AODVv2] Perkins, C., Ratliff, S., Dowdell, J., Steenbrink, L., and
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 19
[DELAY-BASED] [DELAY-BASED]
Jonglez, B. and J. Chroboczek, "A delay-based routing Jonglez, B. and J. Chroboczek, "A delay-based routing
metric", March 2014, <http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3488>. metric", March 2014, <http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3488>.
[DSDV] Perkins, C. and P. Bhagwat, "Highly Dynamic Destination- [DSDV] Perkins, C. and P. Bhagwat, "Highly Dynamic Destination-
Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile
Computers", ACM SIGCOMM'94 Conference on Communications Computers", ACM SIGCOMM'94 Conference on Communications
Architectures, Protocols and Applications 234-244, 1994. Architectures, Protocols and Applications 234-244, 1994.
[DTLS] Decimo, A., Schinazi, D., and J. Chroboczek, "Babel
Routing Protocol over Datagram Transport Layer Security",
draft-ietf-babel-dtls-04 (work in progress), February
2019.
[DUAL] Garcia Luna Aceves, J., "Loop-Free Routing Using Diffusing [DUAL] Garcia Luna Aceves, J., "Loop-Free Routing Using Diffusing
Computations", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 1:1, Computations", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 1:1,
February 1993. February 1993.
[HMAC] Do, C., Kolodziejak, W., and J. Chroboczek, "HMAC
authentication for the Babel routing protocol", draft-
ietf-babel-hmac-04 (work in progress), March 2019.
[LOADng] Clausen, T., Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Niktash, A., Igarashi, [LOADng] Clausen, T., Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Niktash, A., Igarashi,
Y., Satoh, H., Herberg, U., Lavenu, C., Lys, T., and J. Y., Satoh, H., Herberg, U., Lavenu, C., Lys, T., and J.
Dean, "The Lightweight On-demand Ad hoc Distance-vector Dean, "The Lightweight On-demand Ad hoc Distance-vector
Routing Protocol - Next Generation (LOADng)", draft- Routing Protocol - Next Generation (LOADng)", draft-
clausen-lln-loadng-15 (work in progress), January 2017. clausen-lln-loadng-15 (work in progress), January 2017.
[REAL-WORLD] [REAL-WORLD]
Abolhasan, M., Hagelstein, B., and J. Wang, "Real-world Abolhasan, M., Hagelstein, B., and J. Wang, "Real-world
performance of current proactive multi-hop mesh performance of current proactive multi-hop mesh
protocols", Asia-Pacific Conference on Communication 2009, protocols", Asia-Pacific Conference on Communication 2009,
skipping to change at page 9, line 39 skipping to change at page 10, line 14
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012. Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.
[RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg, [RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
"The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2", "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2",
RFC 7181, April 2014. 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 [RFC7779] Rogge, H. and E. Baccelli, "Directional Airtime Metric
Based on Packet Sequence Numbers for Optimized Link State Based on Packet Sequence Numbers for Optimized Link State
Routing Version 2 (OLSRv2)", RFC 7779, Routing Version 2 (OLSRv2)", RFC 7779,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7779, April 2016. DOI 10.17487/RFC7779, April 2016.
[RFC7868] Savage, D., Ng, J., Moore, S., Slice, D., Paluch, P., and [RFC7868] Savage, D., Ng, J., Moore, S., Slice, D., Paluch, P., and
R. White, "Cisco's Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing R. White, "Cisco's Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing
Protocol (EIGRP)", RFC 7868, DOI 10.17487/RFC7868, May Protocol (EIGRP)", RFC 7868, DOI 10.17487/RFC7868, May
2016. 2016.
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
18 lines changed or deleted 39 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/