draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-05.txt   draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-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: Standards Track January 16, 2018 Intended status: Standards Track February 23, 2018
Expires: July 20, 2018 Expires: August 27, 2018
Homenet profile of the Babel routing protocol Homenet profile of the Babel routing protocol
draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-05 draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the subset of the Babel routing protocol and This document defines the subset of the Babel routing protocol and
its extensions that a Homenet router must implement, as well as the its extensions that a Homenet router must implement, as well as the
interactions between HNCP and Babel. interactions between the Home Networking Control Protocol (HNCP) and
Babel.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 http://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 July 20, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
(http://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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 26
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The core of the Homenet protocol suite consists of HNCP [RFC7788], a The core of the Homenet protocol suite consists of the Home
protocol used for flooding configuration information and assigning Networking Control Protocol (HNCP) [RFC7788], a protocol used for
prefixes to links, combined with the Babel routing protocol flooding configuration information and assigning prefixes to links,
[RFC6126bis]. Babel is an extensible, flexible and modular protocol: combined with the Babel routing protocol [RFC6126bis]. Babel is an
minimal implementations of Babel have been demonstrated that consist extensible, flexible and modular protocol: minimal implementations of
of a few hundred lines of code, while the "large" implementation Babel have been demonstrated that consist of a few hundred lines of
includes support for a number of extensions and consists of over ten code, while the "large" implementation includes support for a number
thousand lines of C code. of extensions and consists of over ten thousand lines of C code.
This document consists of two parts. The first specifies the exact This document consists of two parts. The first specifies the exact
subset of the Babel protocol and its extensions that is required by subset of the Babel protocol and its extensions that is required by
an implementation of the Homenet protocol suite. The second an implementation of the Homenet protocol suite. The second
specifies how HNCP interacts with Babel. specifies how HNCP interacts with Babel.
1.1. Requirement Language 1.1. Requirement Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
2119 [RFC2119]. 2119 [RFC2119].
1.2. Background 1.2. Background
The Babel routing protocol and its extensions are defined in a number The Babel routing protocol and its extensions are defined in a number
of documents: of documents:
o RFC 6126bis [RFC6126bis] defines the Babel routing protocol. It o RFC 6126bis [RFC6126bis] defines the Babel routing protocol. It
allows Babel's control data to be carried over either link-local allows Babel's control data to be carried either over link-local
IPv6 or IPv4, and in either case allows announcing both IPv4 and IPv6 or over IPv4, and in either case allows announcing both IPv4
IPv6 routes. It leaves link cost estimation, metric computation and IPv6 routes. It leaves link cost estimation, metric
and route selection to the implementation. Distinct computation and route selection to the implementation. Distinct
implementations of RFC 6126bis Babel will interoperate, in the implementations of RFC 6126bis Babel will interoperate, in the
sense that they will maintain a set of loop-free forwarding paths. sense that they will maintain a set of loop-free forwarding paths.
However, if they implement conflicting options, they might not be However, if they implement conflicting options, they might not be
able to exchange a full set of routes; in the worst case, an able to exchange a full set of routes; in the worst case, an
implementation that only implements the IPv6 subset of the implementation that only implements the IPv6 subset of the
protocol and an implementation that only implements the IPv4 protocol and an implementation that only implements the IPv4
subset of the protocol will not exchange any routes. In addition, subset of the protocol will not exchange any routes. In addition,
if implementations use conflicting route selection policies, if implementations use conflicting route selection policies,
persistent oscillations might occur. persistent oscillations might occur.
skipping to change at page 4, line 50 skipping to change at page 4, line 50
will cause sub-optimal routing. will cause sub-optimal routing.
REQ6: a Homenet implementation of Babel SHOULD distinguish between REQ6: a Homenet implementation of Babel SHOULD distinguish between
wired and wireless links; if it is unable to determine whether a link wired and wireless links; if it is unable to determine whether a link
is wired or wireless, it SHOULD make the worst-case hypothesis that is wired or wireless, it SHOULD make the worst-case hypothesis that
the link is wireless. It SHOULD dynamically probe the quality of the link is wireless. It SHOULD dynamically probe the quality of
wireless links and derive a suitable metric from its quality wireless links and derive a suitable metric from its quality
estimation. The algorithm described in Appendix A of RFC 6126bis MAY estimation. The algorithm described in Appendix A of RFC 6126bis MAY
be used. be used.
Rationale: support for wireless transit links is a "killer Rationale: support for wireless transit links is a distinguishing
feature" of Homenet, something that is requested by our users and feature of Homenet, and one that is requested by our users. In
easy to explain to our bosses. In the absence of dynamically the absence of dynamically computed metrics, the routing protocol
computed metrics, the routing protocol attempts to minimise the attempts to minimise the number of links crossed by a route, and
number of links crossed by a route, and therefore prefers long, therefore prefers long, lossy links to shorter, lossless ones. In
lossy links to shorter, lossless ones. In wireless networks, wireless networks, "hop-count routing is worst-path routing".
"hop-count routing is worst-path routing".
While it would be desirable to perform link-quality probing on
some wired link technologies, notably power-line networks, these
kinds of links tend to be difficult or impossible to detect
automatically, and we are not aware of any published link-quality
algorithms for them. Hence, we do not require link-quality
estimation for wired links of any kind.
2.2. Non-requirements 2.2. Non-requirements
NR1: a Homenet implementation of Babel MAY perform route selection by NR1: a Homenet implementation of Babel MAY perform route selection by
applying hysteresis to route metrics, as suggested in Section 3.6 of applying hysteresis to route metrics, as suggested in Section 3.6 of
RFC 6126bis and described in detail in Section III.E of [BABEL-RTT]. RFC 6126bis and described in detail in Section III.E of [BABEL-RTT].
However, it MAY simply pick the route with the smallest metric. However, it MAY simply pick the route with the smallest metric.
Rationale: hysteresis is only useful in congested and highly Rationale: hysteresis is only useful in congested and highly
dynamic networks. In a typical home network, stable and dynamic networks. In a typical home network, stable and
skipping to change at page 6, line 24 skipping to change at page 6, line 27
uses to enable optimal routing in the presence of multiple IPv6 uses to enable optimal routing in the presence of multiple IPv6
prefixes. External connections with non-trivial prefix policies prefixes. External connections with non-trivial prefix policies
are explicitly excluded from this requirement, since their exact are explicitly excluded from this requirement, since their exact
behaviour is application-specific. behaviour is application-specific.
REQ8: if an HNCP node receives a DHCPv4 lease with an IPv4 address REQ8: if an HNCP node receives a DHCPv4 lease with an IPv4 address
and wins the election for NAT gateway, then it MUST act as a NAT and wins the election for NAT gateway, then it MUST act as a NAT
gateway and MUST announce a (non-specific) IPv4 default route over gateway and MUST announce a (non-specific) IPv4 default route over
Babel. Babel.
Rationale: the Homenet architecture does not use source-specific Rationale: the Homenet stack does not use source-specific routing
routing for IPv4; instead, HNCP elects a single NAT gateway and for IPv4; instead, HNCP elects a single NAT gateway and publishes
publishes a single default route towards that gateway ([RFC7788] a single default route towards that gateway ([RFC7788]
Section 6.5). Section 6.5).
REQ9: if an HNCP node assigns a prefix P to an attached link and REQ9: if an HNCP node assigns a prefix P to an attached link and
announces P in an Assigned-Prefix TLV, then it MUST announce a route announces P in an Assigned-Prefix TLV, then it MUST announce a route
towards P over Babel. towards P over Babel.
Rationale: prefixes assigned to links must be routable within the Rationale: prefixes assigned to links must be routable within the
Homenet. Homenet.
3.2. Non-requirements 3.2. Non-requirements
skipping to change at page 7, line 46 skipping to change at page 7, line 50
writing no protocol for autonomous configuration of HNCP and Babel writing no protocol for autonomous configuration of HNCP and Babel
security has been defined. security has been defined.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document requires no actions from IANA. This document requires no actions from IANA.
6. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
A number of people have helped with defining the requirements listed A number of people have helped with defining the requirements listed
in this document. I am especially indebted to Barbara Stark, Markus in this document. I am especially indebted to Barbara Stark and
Stenberg, and Stephen Farrell. Markus Stenberg.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[BABEL-SS] [BABEL-SS]
Boutier, M. and J. Chroboczek, "Source-Specific Routing in Boutier, M. and J. Chroboczek, "Source-Specific Routing in
Babel", draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-01 (work in Babel", draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-03 (work in
progress), August 2017. progress), August 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
[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-04, Protocol", Internet Draft draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-04,
October 2017. October 2017.
skipping to change at page 8, line 48 skipping to change at page 8, line 48
[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. metric", March 2014.
Available online from http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3488 Available online from http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3488
[RFC7298] Ovsienko, D., "Babel Hashed Message Authentication Code [RFC7298] Ovsienko, D., "Babel Hashed Message Authentication Code
(HMAC) Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 7298, July 2014. (HMAC) Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 7298, July 2014.
[ToS-SPECIFIC] [ToS-SPECIFIC]
Chouasne, G., "https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-chouasne- Chouasne, G., "https://tools.ietf.org/id/
babel-tos-specific-00.xml", draft-chouasne-babel-tos- draft-chouasne-babel-tos-specific-00.xml", draft-chouasne-
specific-00 (work in progress), July 2017. babel-tos-specific-00 (work in progress), July 2017.
Author's Address Author's Address
Juliusz Chroboczek Juliusz Chroboczek
IRIF, University of Paris-Diderot IRIF, University of Paris-Diderot
Case 7014 Case 7014
75205 Paris Cedex 13 75205 Paris Cedex 13
France France
Email: jch@irif.fr Email: jch@irif.fr
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
36 lines changed or deleted 43 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/