* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Babel Status Pages

Babel routing protocol (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas, Deborah Brungard | 2016-Jun-17 —  

IETF-99 babel minutes

Session 2017-07-17 1740-1840: Athens/Barcelona - Audio stream - babel chatroom


minutes-99-babel-00 minute

          BABEL Working Group
          Hilton Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
                  Monday, 17 July 2017.
                  17:40 - 18:40 Athens/Barcelona Room
          Chairs:  Russ White (LinkedIn)
                   Donald Eastlake (Huawei)
          Minutes: Barbara Stark, Russ White
          Jabber: Michael Richardson
          Note well was noted.
          Chair slides presented:
          - 4 min. Administrativia (scribes), Agenda Bashing, Chairs
          - 4 min. Status, Review of Milestones, Chairs
          - 12 min. Mandatory sub-TLVs in Babel, Juliusz Chroboczek
          - 10 min. Unicast Hellos, David Schinazi
          - 5 min. Information Model, Barbara H. Stark
          - 10 min. BIER in Babel, Zheng Zhang
          - 10 min. Source-Specific Routing for Babel, Matthieu Boutier
          - 4 min. Wrap-Up, Chairs
          Current draft discussions
          Applicability draft was declared to have NOT passed WGLC. It will be
          updated and pushed through last call again
          Mandatory sub-TLVs in Babel, Juliusz Chroboczek
          Juliusz Chroboczek presented:
          - slide 3: David Schinazi: We have 2 implementations of unicast hellos
            (joking: "1.5 implementations"). Toke and I intend to try to test
            interoperability this week.
          - slide 10: Tony Przygienda: You could stick a capabilties TLV that is
            advertised per router -- and those that don't have the capability
            can be ignored/ignore the extensions This is difficult with a
            distance vector protocol, because the capability is not carried
            throughout the entire network (as in link state)
          - Slide 11: David: Really dislikes option of bumping protocol
            version. Disagree with need for flag day. You can just do both and
            upgrade routers over time.
          On slide 10, comparing the 2 options. Bump the protocol is messy.
          Juliusz: It's simpler than you make it. You can always send 2 unless
          you set the mandatory bit, then you send 3.
          David: But if I send some packets with v2 and some with v3, I think
          you end up breaking principals of loop avoidance.
          Juliusz: No you can create black holes.
          David: Are black holes ok?
          Margaret Cullen: Are you confident the implementations we have will
          ignore the additional bit?
          Juliusz: Yes
          Michael Richardson: I'm not thrilled about v2 to v3. What happens when
          we go to v4? We still maintain v2?  It seems better to remember what
          talks v2 or v3 and send appropriate packets.
          Toke Høiland-Jørgensen: I'm not sure it solves the problem when you
          have half a network. Not sure the complexity is worth it.
          Unicast Hellos, David Schinazi
          Presented slides:
          Slide 7: Juliusz: That's not part of the doc and should not be used
          for neighbor acquisition.
          David: Doc currently says if you only see scheduled hellos
          . And this says...
          John Dowdell: If you receive multicast and respond unicast, does that
          mean everything from thereafter is unicast?
          David: In Babel, you keep sending hellos periodically, and you reply
          with IHUs. So if you keep seeing hellos and IHUs from your neighbors,
          you know they're still there. It's a periodic thing.
          Juliusz: 2 comments. One is you are allowed to send "multicast" hellos
          over unicast. A hello must be sent to all neighbors. Nothing breaks if
          you send to all neighbors over unicast. So new doc version says must
          send hellos either to all via unicast, or with multicast. Is it worth
          the complexity?  2nd comment is we are contradicting ourselves. Must
          parse unicast hello and can drop after parsing it.
          Russ: I'd like to take further discussion but not now because I also
          have unicast questions.
          David: There is ambiguity of sending unicast to all being like
          Information Model, Barbara H. Stark
          Presented slides:
          Slide 3: Juliusz: In second point, the parameters should be removed.
          Barbara: They have been removed, but there was question as to whether
          to add them per interface
          Juliusz: No
          Barbara: Good. Issue can be removed.
          Source-Specific Routing for Babel, Matthieu Boutier
          Presented slides:
          Toke: I like this.
          David: Great work. Support adopting.
          Juliusz: Dumpt the dump.
          Donald: We will determine if there is consensus for adoption.
          BIER in Babel, Zheng Zhang
          Presented slides:
          Alia Atlas: Doc should be in BABEL if there is interest. Because BABEL
          is still moving and knowledge is broad.
          Juliusz: Very interesting work, but not necessarily interesting from
          perspective of application. It would be used by data center or
          operator. Curious as to how difficult it would be to implement BIER
          when you only have the partial view that BABEL gives you.  Next
          question is I'm uncomfortable with sub-sub-TLV. Is the needed TLV
          widely implemented? Not sure since focus has been on BABEL for
          homenet. That makes me wary of adoption.
          Denis Ovsienko spoke remotely regarding github implementation.

Generated from PyHt script /wg/babel/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -