draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-07.txt   rfc9080.txt 
Network Working Group J. Chroboczek Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Chroboczek
Internet-Draft IRIF, University of Paris-Diderot Request for Comments: 9080 IRIF, University of Paris-Diderot
Intended status: Standards Track July 18, 2018 Category: Standards Track August 2021
Expires: January 19, 2019 ISSN: 2070-1721
Homenet profile of the Babel routing protocol Homenet Profile of the Babel Routing Protocol
draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-07
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the exact subset of the Babel routing protocol This document defines the exact subset of the Babel routing protocol
and its extensions that is required by an implementation of the and its extensions that is required by an implementation of the
Homenet protocol suite, as well as the interactions between the Home Homenet protocol suite, as well as the interactions between the Home
Networking Control Protocol (HNCP) and Babel. 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 is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 19, 2019. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9080.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
1.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language
1.2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2. Background
2. The Homenet profile of Babel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The Homenet Profile of Babel
2.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Requirements
2.2. Optional features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Optional Features
3. Interactions between HNCP and Babel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Interactions between HNCP and Babel
3.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Requirements
3.2. Optional features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Optional Features
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Security Considerations
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IANA Considerations
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. References
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Normative References
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Informative References
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Acknowledgments
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Author's Address
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The core of the Homenet protocol suite consists of the Home The core of the Homenet protocol suite consists of the Home
Networking Control Protocol (HNCP) [RFC7788], a protocol used for Networking Control Protocol (HNCP) [RFC7788], a protocol used for
flooding configuration information and assigning prefixes to links, flooding configuration information and assigning prefixes to links,
combined with the Babel routing protocol [RFC6126bis]. Babel is an combined with the Babel routing protocol [RFC8966]. Babel is an
extensible, flexible and modular protocol: minimal implementations of extensible, flexible, and modular protocol: minimal implementations
Babel have been demonstrated that consist of a few hundred lines of of Babel have been demonstrated that consist of a few hundred lines
code, while the "large" implementation includes support for a number of code, while the "large" implementation includes support for a
of extensions and consists of over ten thousand lines of C code. number 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. Requirements 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 BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
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 * RFC 8966 [RFC8966] defines the Babel routing protocol. It allows
allows Babel's control data to be carried either over link-local Babel's control data to be carried either over link-local IPv6 or
IPv6 or over IPv4, and in either case allows announcing both IPv4 over IPv4 and in either case allows announcing both IPv4 and IPv6
and IPv6 routes. It leaves link cost estimation, metric routes. It leaves link cost estimation, metric computation, and
computation and route selection to the implementation. Distinct route selection to the implementation. Distinct implementations
implementations of RFC 6126bis Babel will interoperate, in the of Babel [RFC8966] will interoperate, in the sense that they will
sense that they will maintain a set of loop-free forwarding paths. maintain a set of loop-free forwarding paths. However, if they
However, if they implement conflicting options, they might not be implement conflicting options, they might not be able to exchange
able to exchange a full set of routes; in the worst case, an a full set of routes. In the worst case, an implementation that
implementation that only implements the IPv6 subset of the only implements the IPv6 subset of the protocol and an
protocol and an implementation that only implements the IPv4 implementation that only implements the IPv4 subset of the
subset of the protocol will not exchange any routes. In addition, protocol will not exchange any routes. In addition, if
if implementations use conflicting route selection policies, implementations use conflicting route selection policies,
persistent oscillations might occur. persistent oscillations might occur.
o The informative Appendix A of RFC 6126bis suggests a simple and * The informative Appendix A of [RFC8966] suggests a simple and
easy to implement algorithm for cost and metric computation that easy-to-implement algorithm for cost and metric computation that
has been found to work satisfactorily in a wide range of has been found to work satisfactorily in a wide range of
topologies. topologies.
o While RFC 6126bis does not provide an algorithm for route * While RFC 8966 does not provide an algorithm for route selection,
selection, its Section 3.6 suggests selecting the route with its Section 3.6 suggests selecting the route with the smallest
smallest metric with some hysteresis applied. An algorithm that metric with some hysteresis applied. An algorithm that has been
has been found to work well in practice is described in found to work well in practice is described in Section III.E of
Section III.E of [DELAY-BASED]. [DELAY-BASED].
o Five RFCs and Internet-Drafts define optional extensions to Babel: * Four documents define optional extensions to Babel: authentication
HMAC-based authentication [RFC7298], source-specific routing based on Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) [RFC8967],
[BABEL-SS], delay-based routing [BABEL-RTT] and ToS-specific source-specific routing [RFC9079], delay-based routing
routing [ToS-SPECIFIC]. All of these extensions interoperate with [BABEL-RTT], and ToS-specific (Type of Service) routing
the core protocol as well as with each other. [ToS-SPECIFIC]. All of these extensions interoperate with the
core protocol as well as with each other.
2. The Homenet profile of Babel 2. The Homenet Profile of Babel
2.1. Requirements 2.1. Requirements
REQ1: a Homenet implementation of Babel MUST encapsulate Babel REQ1: A Homenet implementation of Babel MUST encapsulate Babel
control traffic in IPv6 packets sent to the IANA-assigned port 6696 control traffic in IPv6 packets sent to the IANA-assigned
and either the IANA-assigned multicast group ff02::1:6 or to a link- port 6696 and either the IANA-assigned multicast group
local unicast address. ff02::1:6 or to a link-local unicast address.
Rationale: since Babel is able to carry both IPv4 and IPv6 routes Rationale: Since Babel is able to carry both IPv4 and IPv6
over either IPv4 or IPv6, choosing the protocol used for carrying routes over either IPv4 or IPv6, choosing the protocol
control traffic is a matter of preference. Since IPv6 has some used for carrying control traffic is a matter of
features that make implementations somewhat simpler and more preference. Since IPv6 has some features that make
reliable (notably properly scoped and reasonably stable link-local implementations somewhat simpler and more reliable
addresses), we require carrying control data over IPv6. (notably properly scoped and reasonably stable link-local
addresses), we require carrying control data over IPv6.
REQ2: a Homenet implementation of Babel MUST implement the IPv6 REQ2: A Homenet implementation of Babel MUST implement the IPv6
subset of the protocol defined in the body of RFC 6126bis. subset of the protocol defined in the body of RFC 8966.
Rationale: support for IPv6 routing is an essential component of Rationale: Support for IPv6 routing is an essential
the Homenet architecture. component of the Homenet architecture.
REQ3: a Homenet implementation of Babel SHOULD implement the IPv4 REQ3: A Homenet implementation of Babel SHOULD implement the IPv4
subset of the protocol defined in the body of RFC 6126bis. Use of subset of the protocol defined in the body of RFC 8966. Use
other techniques for acquiring IPv4 connectivity (such as multiple of other techniques for acquiring IPv4 connectivity (such as
layers of NAT) is strongly discouraged. multiple layers of NAT) is strongly discouraged.
Rationale: support for IPv4 will likely remain necessary for years Rationale: Support for IPv4 will likely remain necessary
to come, and even in pure IPv6 deployments, including code for for years to come, and even in pure IPv6 deployments,
supporting IPv4 has very little cost. Since HNCP makes it easy to including code for supporting IPv4 has very little cost.
assign distinct IPv4 prefixes to the links in a network, it is not Since HNCP makes it easy to assign distinct IPv4 prefixes
necessary to resort to multiple layers of NAT, with all of its to the links in a network, it is not necessary to resort
problems. to multiple layers of NAT, with all of its problems.
REQ4: a Homenet implementation of Babel MUST implement source- REQ4: A Homenet implementation of Babel MUST implement source-
specific routing for IPv6, as defined in draft-ietf-babel-source- specific routing for IPv6, as defined in RFC 9079 [RFC9079].
specific [BABEL-SS].
Rationale: source-specific routing is an essential component of Rationale: Source-specific routing is an essential
the Homenet architecture. Source-specific routing for IPv4 is not component of the Homenet architecture. Source-specific
required, since HNCP arranges things so that a single non-specific routing for IPv4 is not required, since HNCP arranges
IPv4 default route is announced (Section 6.5 of [RFC7788]). things so that a single nonspecific IPv4 default route is
announced (Section 6.5 of [RFC7788]).
REQ5: a Homenet implementation of Babel must use metrics that are of REQ5: A Homenet implementation of Babel must use metrics that are
a similar magnitude to the values suggested in Appendix A of of a similar magnitude to the values suggested in Appendix A
RFC 6126bis. In particular, it SHOULD assign costs that are no less of [RFC8966]. In particular, it SHOULD assign costs that are
than 256 to wireless links, and SHOULD assign costs between 32 and no less than 256 to wireless links and SHOULD assign costs
196 to lossless wired links. between 32 and 196 to lossless wired links.
Rationale: if two implementations of Babel choose very different Rationale: If two implementations of Babel choose very
values for link costs, combining routers from different vendors different values for link costs, combining routers from
will cause sub-optimal routing. different vendors will cause suboptimal 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
is wired or wireless, it SHOULD make the worst-case hypothesis that whether a link is wired or wireless, it SHOULD make the
the link is wireless. It SHOULD dynamically probe the quality of worst-case hypothesis that the link is wireless. It SHOULD
wireless links and derive a suitable metric from its quality dynamically probe the quality of wireless links and derive a
estimation. Appendix A of RFC 6126bis gives an example of a suitable suitable metric from its quality estimation. Appendix A of
algorithm. [RFC8966] gives an example of a suitable algorithm.
Rationale: support for wireless transit links is a distinguishing Rationale: Support for wireless transit links is a
feature of Homenet, and one that is requested by our users. In distinguishing feature of Homenet, and one that is
the absence of dynamically computed metrics, the routing protocol requested by our users. In the absence of dynamically
attempts to minimise the number of links crossed by a route, and computed metrics, the routing protocol attempts to
therefore prefers long, lossy links to shorter, lossless ones. In minimise the number of links crossed by a route and
wireless networks, "hop-count routing is worst-path routing". 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 While it would be desirable to perform link-quality
some wired link technologies, notably power-line networks, these probing on some wired link technologies, notably power-
kinds of links tend to be difficult or impossible to detect line networks, these kinds of links tend to be difficult
automatically, and we are not aware of any published link-quality or impossible to detect automatically, and we are not
algorithms for them. Hence, we do not require link-quality aware of any published link-quality algorithms for them.
estimation for wired links of any kind. Hence, we do not require link-quality estimation for wired
links of any kind.
2.2. Optional features 2.2. Optional Features
OPT1: a Homenet implementation of Babel MAY perform route selection OPT1: A Homenet implementation of Babel MAY perform route selection
by applying hysteresis to route metrics, as suggested in Section 3.6 by applying hysteresis to route metrics, as suggested in
of RFC 6126bis and described in detail in Section III.E of Section 3.6 of [RFC8966] and described in detail in
[BABEL-RTT]. However, hysteresis is not required, and the Section III.E of [DELAY-BASED]. However, hysteresis is not
implementation may simply pick the route with the smallest metric. required, and the implementation 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
dynamic networks. In a typical home network, stable and highly dynamic networks. In a typical home network, which
uncongested, the feedback loop that hysteresis compensates for is stable and uncongested, the feedback loop that
does not occur. hysteresis compensates for does not occur.
OPT2: a Homenet implementation of Babel may include support for other OPT2: A Homenet implementation of Babel may include support for
extensions to the protocol, as long as they are known to interoperate other extensions to the protocol, as long as they are known
with both the core protocol and source-specific routing. to interoperate with both the core protocol and source-
specific routing.
Rationale: a number of extensions to the Babel routing protocol Rationale: A number of extensions to the Babel routing
have been defined over the years; however, they are useful in protocol have been defined over the years; however, they
fairly specific situations, such as routing over global-scale are useful in fairly specific situations, such as routing
overlay networks [BABEL-RTT] or multi-hop wireless networks with over global-scale overlay networks [BABEL-RTT] or multi-
multiple radio frequencies [BABEL-Z]. Hence, with the exception hop wireless networks with multiple radio frequencies
of source-specific routing, no extensions are required for [BABEL-Z]. Hence, with the exception of source-specific
Homenet. routing, no extensions are required for Homenet.
3. Interactions between HNCP and Babel 3. Interactions between HNCP and Babel
The Homenet architecture cleanly separates configuration, which is The Homenet architecture cleanly separates configuration, which is
done by HNCP, from routing, which is done by Babel. While the done by HNCP, from routing, which is done by Babel. While the
coupling between the two protocols is deliberately kept to a minimum, coupling between the two protocols is deliberately kept to a minimum,
some interactions are unavoidable. some interactions are unavoidable.
All the interactions between HNCP and Babel consist of HNCP causing All the interactions between HNCP and Babel consist of HNCP causing
Babel to perform an announcement on its behalf (under no Babel to perform an announcement on its behalf (under no
circumstances does Babel cause HNCP to perform an action). How this circumstances does Babel cause HNCP to perform an action). How this
is realised is an implementation detail that is outside the scope of is realised is an implementation detail that is outside the scope of
this document; while it could conceivably be done using a private this document; while it could conceivably be done using a private
communication channel between HNCP and Babel, in existing communication channel between HNCP and Babel, in existing
implementations HNCP installs a route in the operating system's implementations, HNCP installs a route in the operating system's
kernel which is later picked up by Babel using the existing kernel that is later picked up by Babel using the existing
redistribution mechanisms. redistribution mechanisms.
3.1. Requirements 3.1. Requirements
REQ7: if an HNCP node receives a DHCPv6 prefix delegation for prefix REQ7: If an HNCP node receives a DHCPv6 prefix delegation for
P and publishes an External-Connection TLV containing a Delegated- prefix P and publishes an External-Connection TLV containing
Prefix TLV with prefix P and no Prefix-Policy TLV, then it MUST a Delegated-Prefix TLV with prefix P and no Prefix-Policy
announce a source-specific default route with source prefix P over TLV, then it MUST announce a source-specific default route
Babel. with source prefix P over Babel.
Rationale: source-specific routes are the main tool that Homenet Rationale: Source-specific routes are the main tool that
uses to enable optimal routing in the presence of multiple IPv6 Homenet uses to enable optimal routing in the presence of
prefixes. External connections with non-trivial prefix policies multiple IPv6 prefixes. External connections with
are explicitly excluded from this requirement, since their exact nontrivial prefix policies are explicitly excluded from
behaviour is application-specific. this requirement, since their exact 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
gateway and MUST announce a (non-specific) IPv4 default route over NAT gateway and MUST announce a (nonspecific) IPv4 default
Babel. route over Babel.
Rationale: the Homenet stack does not use source-specific routing Rationale: The Homenet stack does not use source-specific
for IPv4; instead, HNCP elects a single NAT gateway and publishes routing for IPv4; instead, HNCP elects a single NAT
a single default route towards that gateway ([RFC7788] gateway and publishes a single default route towards that
Section 6.5). gateway ([RFC7788], 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
towards P over Babel. a route towards P over Babel.
Rationale: prefixes assigned to links must be routable within the Rationale: Prefixes assigned to links must be routable
Homenet. within the Homenet.
3.2. Optional features 3.2. Optional Features
OPT3: an HNCP node that receives a DHCPv6 prefix delegation MAY OPT3: An HNCP node that receives a DHCPv6 prefix delegation MAY
announce a non-specific IPv6 default route over Babel in addition to announce a nonspecific IPv6 default route over Babel in
the source-specific default route mandated by requirement REQ7. addition to the source-specific default route mandated by
requirement REQ7.
Rationale: since the source-specific default route is more Rationale: Since the source-specific default route is more
specific than the non-specific default route, the former will specific than the nonspecific default route, the former
override the latter if all nodes implement source-specific will override the latter if all nodes implement source-
routing. Announcing an additional non-specific route is allowed, specific routing. Announcing an additional nonspecific
since doing that causes no harm and might simplify operations in route is allowed, since doing that causes no harm and
some circumstances, e.g. when interoperating with a routing might simplify operations in some circumstances, e.g.,
protocol that does not support source-specific routing. when interoperating with a routing protocol that does not
support source-specific routing.
OPT4: an HNCP node that receives a DHCPv4 lease with an IPv4 address OPT4: An HNCP node that receives a DHCPv4 lease with an IPv4
and wins the election for NAT gateway SHOULD NOT announce a source- address and wins the election for NAT gateway SHOULD NOT
specific IPv4 default route. announce a source-specific IPv4 default route.
Homenet does not require support for IPv4 source-specific routing. Rationale: Homenet does not require support for IPv4
Announcing IPv4 source-specific routes will not cause routing source-specific routing. Announcing IPv4 source-specific
pathologies (blackholes or routing loops), but it might cause routes will not cause routing pathologies (blackholes or
packets sourced in different parts of the Homenet to follow routing loops), but it might cause packets sourced in
different paths, with all the confusion that this entails. different parts of the Homenet to follow different paths,
with all the confusion that this entails.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
Both HNCP and Babel carry their control data in IPv6 packets with a Both HNCP and Babel carry their control data in IPv6 packets with a
link-local source address, and implementations are required to drop link-local source address, and implementations are required to drop
packets sent from a global address. Hence, they are only susceptible packets sent from a global address. Hence, they are only susceptible
to attacks from a directly connected link on which the HNCP and Babel to attacks from a directly connected link on which the HNCP and Babel
implementations are listening. implementations are listening.
The security of a Homenet network relies on having a set of The security of a Homenet network relies on having a set of
"Internal", "Ad Hoc" and "Hybrid" interfaces (Section 5.1 of "Internal", "Ad Hoc", and "Hybrid" interfaces (Section 5.1 of
[RFC7788]) that are assumed to be connected to links that are secured [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 at a lower layer. HNCP and Babel packets are only accepted when they
originate on these trusted links. "External" and "Guest" interfaces originate on these trusted links. "External" and "Guest" interfaces
are connected to links that are not trusted, and any HNCP or Babel are connected to links that are not trusted, and any HNCP or Babel
packets that are received on such interfaces are ignored. ("Leaf" packets that are received on such interfaces are ignored. ("Leaf"
interfaces are a special case, since they are connected to trusted interfaces are a special case since they are connected to trusted
links but HNCP and Babel traffic received on such interfaces is links, but HNCP and Babel traffic received on such interfaces is
ignored.) This implies that the security of a Homenet network ignored.) This implies that the security of a Homenet network
depends on the reliability of the border discovery procedure depends on the reliability of the border discovery procedure
described in Section 5.3 of [RFC7788]. described in Section 5.3 of [RFC7788].
If untrusted links are used for transit, which is NOT RECOMMENDED, If untrusted links are used for transit, which is NOT RECOMMENDED,
then any HNCP and Babel traffic that is carried over such links MUST then any HNCP and Babel traffic that is carried over such links MUST
be secured using an upper-layer security protocol. While both HNCP be secured using an upper-layer security protocol. While both HNCP
and Babel support cryptographic authentication, at the time of and Babel support cryptographic authentication, at the time of
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 has no IANA actions.
6. Acknowledgments
A number of people have helped with defining the requirements listed
in this document. I am especially indebted to Barbara Stark and
Markus Stenberg.
7. References
7.1. Normative References 6. References
[BABEL-SS] 6.1. Normative References
Boutier, M. and J. Chroboczek, "Source-Specific Routing in
Babel", draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-03 (work in
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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6126bis]
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 [RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April
2016. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References [RFC8966] Chroboczek, J. and D. Schinazi, "The Babel Routing
Protocol", RFC 8966, DOI 10.17487/RFC8966, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8966>.
[RFC9079] Boutier, M. and J. Chroboczek, "Source-Specific Routing in
the Babel Routing Protocol", RFC 9079,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9079, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9079>.
6.2. Informative References
[BABEL-RTT] [BABEL-RTT]
Jonglez, B. and J. Chroboczek, "Delay-based Metric Jonglez, B. and J. Chroboczek, "Delay-based Metric
Extension for the Babel Routing Protocol", draft-jonglez- Extension for the Babel Routing Protocol", Work in
babel-rtt-extension-01 (work in progress), May 2015. Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-
00, 26 April 2019, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-00>.
[BABEL-Z] Chroboczek, J., "Diversity Routing for the Babel Routing [BABEL-Z] Chroboczek, J., "Diversity Routing for the Babel Routing
Protocol", draft-chroboczek-babel-diversity-routing-01 Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
(work in progress), February 2016. chroboczek-babel-diversity-routing-01, 15 February 2016,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chroboczek-
babel-diversity-routing-01>.
[DELAY-BASED] [DELAY-BASED]
Jonglez, B. and J. Chroboczek, "A delay-based routing Jonglez, B., Boutier, M., and J. Chroboczek, "A delay-
metric", March 2014. based routing metric", March 2014,
<http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3488>.
Available online from http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3488
[RFC7298] Ovsienko, D., "Babel Hashed Message Authentication Code [RFC8967] Dô, C., Kolodziejak, W., and J. Chroboczek, "MAC
(HMAC) Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 7298, July 2014. Authentication for the Babel Routing Protocol", RFC 8967,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8967, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8967>.
[ToS-SPECIFIC] [ToS-SPECIFIC]
Chouasne, G., "https://tools.ietf.org/id/ Chouasne, G. and J. Chroboczek, "TOS-Specific Routing in
draft-chouasne-babel-tos-specific-00.xml", draft-chouasne- Babel", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-chouasne-
babel-tos-specific-00 (work in progress), July 2017. babel-tos-specific-00, 3 July 2017,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chouasne-
babel-tos-specific-00>.
Acknowledgments
A number of people have helped with defining the requirements listed
in this document. I am especially indebted to Barbara Stark and
Markus Stenberg.
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. 61 change blocks. 
232 lines changed or deleted 247 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/