Network Working Group                                      J. Chroboczek
Internet-Draft                         IRIF, University of Paris-Diderot
Intended status: Standards Track                        January 16,                       February 23, 2018
Expires: July 20, August 27, 2018

             Homenet profile of the Babel routing protocol


   This document defines the subset of the Babel routing protocol and
   its extensions that a Homenet router must implement, as well as the
   interactions between HNCP the Home Networking Control Protocol (HNCP) and

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

   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 20, August 27, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   ( 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirement Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.2.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The Homenet profile of Babel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Non-requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Interactions between HNCP and Babel . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Non-requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   The core of the Homenet protocol suite consists of HNCP the Home
   Networking Control Protocol (HNCP) [RFC7788], a protocol used for
   flooding configuration information and assigning prefixes to links,
   combined with the Babel routing protocol [RFC6126bis].  Babel is an
   extensible, flexible and modular protocol: minimal implementations of
   Babel have been demonstrated that consist of a few hundred lines of
   code, while the "large" implementation includes support for a number
   of extensions and consists of over ten thousand lines of C code.

   This document consists of two parts.  The first specifies the exact
   subset of the Babel protocol and its extensions that is required by
   an implementation of the Homenet protocol suite.  The second
   specifies how HNCP interacts with Babel.

1.1.  Requirement Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
   2119 [RFC2119].

1.2.  Background

   The Babel routing protocol and its extensions are defined in a number
   of documents:

   o  RFC 6126bis [RFC6126bis] defines the Babel routing protocol.  It
      allows Babel's control data to be carried over either over link-local
      IPv6 or over IPv4, and in either case allows announcing both IPv4
      and IPv6 routes.  It leaves link cost estimation, metric
      computation and route selection to the implementation.  Distinct
      implementations of RFC 6126bis Babel will interoperate, in the
      sense that they will maintain a set of loop-free forwarding paths.
      However, if they implement conflicting options, they might not be
      able to exchange a full set of routes; in the worst case, an
      implementation that only implements the IPv6 subset of the
      protocol and an implementation that only implements the IPv4
      subset of the protocol will not exchange any routes.  In addition,
      if implementations use conflicting route selection policies,
      persistent oscillations might occur.

   o  The informative Appendix A of RFC 6126bis suggests a simple and
      easy to implement algorithm for cost and metric computation that
      has been found to work satisfactorily in a wide range of

   o  While RFC 6126bis does not provide an algorithm for route
      selection, its Section 3.6 suggests selecting the route with
      smallest metric with some hysteresis applied.  An algorithm that
      has been found to work well in practice is described in
      Section III.E of [DELAY-BASED].

   o  Five RFCs and Internet-Drafts define optional extensions to Babel:
      HMAC-based authentication [RFC7298], source-specific routing
      [BABEL-SS], delay-based routing [BABEL-RTT] and ToS-specific
      routing [ToS-SPECIFIC].  All of these extensions interoperate with
      the core protocol as well as with each other.

2.  The Homenet profile of Babel

2.1.  Requirements

   REQ1: a Homenet implementation of Babel MUST encapsulate Babel
   control traffic in IPv6 packets sent to the IANA-assigned port 6696
   and either the IANA-assigned multicast group ff02::1:6 or to a link-
   local unicast address.

      Rationale: since Babel is able to carry both IPv4 and IPv6 routes
      over either IPv4 or IPv6, choosing the protocol used for carrying
      control traffic is a matter of preference.  Since IPv6 has some
      features that make implementations somewhat simpler and more
      reliable (notably link-local addresses), we require carrying
      control data over IPv6.

   REQ2: a Homenet implementation of Babel MUST implement the IPv6
   subset of the protocol defined in the body of RFC 6126bis.

      Rationale: support for IPv6 routing is an essential component of
      the Homenet architecture.

   REQ3: a Homenet implementation of Babel SHOULD implement the IPv4
   subset of the protocol defined in the body of RFC 6126bis.  Use of
   other techniques for acquiring IPv4 connectivity (such as multiple
   layers of NAT) is strongly discouraged.

      Rationale: support for IPv4 will likely remain necessary for years
      to come, and even in pure IPv6 deployments, including code for
      supporting IPv4 has very little cost.  Since HNCP makes it easy to
      assign distinct IPv4 prefixes to the links in a network, it is not
      necessary to resort to multiple layers of NAT, with all of its

   REQ4: a Homenet implementation of Babel MUST implement source-
   specific routing for IPv6, as defined in draft-ietf-babel-source-
   specific [BABEL-SS].

      Rationale: source-specific routing is an essential component of
      the Homenet architecture.  Source-specific routing for IPv4 is not
      required, since HNCP arranges things so that a single non-specific
      IPv4 default route is announced (Section 6.5 of [RFC7788]).

   REQ5: a Homenet implementation of Babel MUST use metrics that are of
   a similar magnitude to the values suggested in Appendix A of
   RFC 6126bis.  In particular, it SHOULD assign costs that are no less
   than 256 to wireless links, and SHOULD assign costs between 32 and
   196 to lossless wired links.

      Rationale: if two implementations of Babel choose very different
      values for link costs, combining routers from different vendors
      will cause sub-optimal routing.

   REQ6: a Homenet implementation of Babel SHOULD distinguish between
   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
   the link is wireless.  It SHOULD dynamically probe the quality of
   wireless links and derive a suitable metric from its quality
   estimation.  The algorithm described in Appendix A of RFC 6126bis MAY
   be used.

      Rationale: support for wireless transit links is a "killer
      feature" distinguishing
      feature of Homenet, something and one that is requested by our users and
      easy to explain to our bosses. users.  In
      the absence of dynamically computed metrics, the routing protocol
      attempts to minimise the number of links crossed by a route, and
      therefore prefers long, lossy links to shorter, lossless ones.  In
      wireless networks, "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

   NR1: a Homenet implementation of Babel MAY perform route selection by
   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].
   However, it MAY simply pick the route with the smallest metric.

      Rationale: hysteresis is only useful in congested and highly
      dynamic networks.  In a typical home network, stable and
      uncongested, the feedback loop that hysteresis compensates for
      does not occur.

   NR2: a Homenet implementation of Babel MAY include support for other
   extensions to the protocol, as long as they are known to interoperate
   with both the core protocol and source-specific routing.

      Rationale: a number of extensions to the Babel routing protocol
      have been defined over the years; however, they are useful in
      fairly specific situations, such as routing over global-scale
      overlay networks [BABEL-RTT] or multi-hop wireless networks with
      multiple radio frequencies [BABEL-Z].  Hence, with the exception
      of source-specific routing, no extensions are required for

3.  Interactions between HNCP and Babel

   The Homenet architecture cleanly separates between configuration,
   which is done by HNCP, and routing, which is done by Babel.  While
   the coupling between the two protocols is deliberately kept to a
   minimum, some interactions are unavoidable.

   All the interactions between HNCP and Babel consist of HNCP causing
   Babel to perform an announcement on its behalf (under no
   circumstances does Babel cause HNCP to perform an action).  How this
   is realised is an implementation detail that is outside the scope of
   this document; while it could conceivably be done using a private
   communication channel between HNCP and Babel, in existing
   implementations HNCP installs a route in the operating system's
   kernel which is later picked up by Babel using the existing
   redistribution mechanisms.

3.1.  Requirements

   REQ7: if an HNCP node receives a DHCPv6 prefix delegation for prefix
   P and publishes an External-Connection TLV containing a Delegated-
   Prefix TLV with prefix P and no Prefix-Policy TLV, then it MUST
   announce a source-specific default route with source prefix P over

      Rationale: source-specific routes are the main tool that Homenet
      uses to enable optimal routing in the presence of multiple IPv6
      prefixes.  External connections with non-trivial prefix policies
      are explicitly excluded from this requirement, since their exact
      behaviour is application-specific.

   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
   gateway and MUST announce a (non-specific) IPv4 default route over

      Rationale: the Homenet architecture stack does not use source-specific routing
      for IPv4; instead, HNCP elects a single NAT gateway and publishes
      a single default route towards that gateway ([RFC7788]
      Section 6.5).

   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
   towards P over Babel.

      Rationale: prefixes assigned to links must be routable within the

3.2.  Non-requirements

   NR3: an HNCP node that receives a DHCPv6 prefix delegation MAY
   announce a non-specific IPv6 default route over Babel in addition to
   the source-specific default route mandated by requirement REQ7.

      Rationale: since the source-specific default route is more
      specific than the non-specific default route, the former will
      override the latter if all nodes implement source-specific
      routing.  Announcing an additional non-specific route is allowed,
      since doing that causes no harm and might simplify operations in
      some circumstances, e.g. when interoperating with a routing
      protocol that does not support source-specific routing.

   NR4: an HNCP node that receives a DHCPv4 lease with an IPv4 address
   and wins the election for NAT gateway SHOULD NOT announce a source-
   specific IPv4 default route.

      Homenet does not require support for IPv4 source-specific routing.
      Announcing IPv4 source-specific routes will not cause routing
      pathologies (blackholes or routing loops), but it might cause
      packets sourced in different parts of the Homenet to follow
      different paths, with all the confusion that this entails.

4.  Security Considerations

   Both HNCP and Babel carry their control data in IPv6 packets with a
   link-local source address, and implementations are required to drop
   packets sent from a global address.  Hence, they are only susceptible
   to attacks from a directly connected link on which the HNCP and Babel
   implementations are listening.

   The security of a Homenet network relies on having a set of
   "Internal", "Ad Hoc" and "Hybrid" interfaces (Section 5.1 of
   [RFC7788]) that are assumed to be connected to links that are secured
   at a lower layer.  HNCP and Babel packets are only accepted when they
   originate on these trusted links.  "External" and "Guest" interfaces
   are connected to links that are not trusted, and any HNCP or Babel
   packets that are received on such interfaces are ignored.  ("Leaf"
   interfaces are a special case, since they are connected to trusted
   links but HNCP and Babel traffic received on such interfaces is
   ignored.)  This implies that the security of a Homenet network
   depends on the reliability of the border discovery procedure
   described in Section 5.3 of [RFC7788].

   If untrusted links are used for transit, which is NOT RECOMMENDED,
   then any HNCP and Babel traffic that is carried over such links MUST
   be secured using an upper-layer security protocol.  While both HNCP
   and Babel support cryptographic authentication, at the time of
   writing no protocol for autonomous configuration of HNCP and Babel
   security has been defined.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires no actions from IANA.

6.  Acknowledgments

   A number of people have helped with defining the requirements listed
   in this document.  I am especially indebted to Barbara Stark, Markus
   Stenberg, Stark and Stephen Farrell.
   Markus Stenberg.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

              Boutier, M. and J. Chroboczek, "Source-Specific Routing in
              Babel", draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-01 draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-03 (work in
              progress), August 2017. 2018.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.

              Chroboczek, J. and D. Schinazi, "The Babel Routing
              Protocol", Internet Draft draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-04,
              October 2017.

   [RFC7788]  Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
              Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April

7.2.  Informative References

              Jonglez, B. and J. Chroboczek, "Delay-based Metric
              Extension for the Babel Routing Protocol", draft-jonglez-
              babel-rtt-extension-01 (work in progress), May 2015.

   [BABEL-Z]  Chroboczek, J., "Diversity Routing for the Babel Routing
              Protocol", draft-chroboczek-babel-diversity-routing-01
              (work in progress), February 2016.

              Jonglez, B. and J. Chroboczek, "A delay-based routing
              metric", March 2014.

              Available online from

   [RFC7298]  Ovsienko, D., "Babel Hashed Message Authentication Code
              (HMAC) Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 7298, July 2014.

              Chouasne, G., "
              babel-tos-specific-00.xml", draft-chouasne-babel-tos-
              specific-00 "
              draft-chouasne-babel-tos-specific-00.xml", draft-chouasne-
              babel-tos-specific-00 (work in progress), July 2017.

Author's Address

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