* 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, Martin Vigoureux, John Scudder | 2016-Jun-17 —  

2021-07-21 charter

Babel routing protocol (babel)


 Current Status: Active

     Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
     Russ White <russ@riw.us>

 Routing Area Directors:
     Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
     John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
     Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>

 Routing Area Advisor:
     Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>

 Mailing Lists:
     General Discussion: babel@ietf.org
     To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
     Archive:            https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/

Description of Working Group:

  Babel is a loop-avoiding, distance vector routing protocol with good
  provisions for dynamically computed link metrics. The core of the Babel
  protocol and security extensions are described in Experimental
  Independent Stream RFCs 6126, 7557, and 7298.

  These RFCs are the basis of three independent, open source
  implementations. There is some production deployment of these
  implementations, notably in hybrid networks (networks that include
  classical, wired parts with meshy radio bits) and in global overlay
  networks (networks built out of large numbers of tunnels spanning

  The Working Group will focus on moving the Babel protocol to IETF
  Proposed Standard with IETF review.  This includes clarifying RFC 6126
  and integrating RFC 7557 and feedback provided by independent
  implementations, and resolving comments. It is not a requirement that
  the Babel protocol produced is backwards compatible with RFC 6126.  It
  is a requirement that Babel support at least one profile that is
  auto-configuring.  Other documents that are relevant to the above work
  can also be produced. Particular emphasis will be placed on work needed
  for a Proposed Standard routing protocol, such as ensuring manageability
  and strong security. Link metric measurement or link metric calculation
  procedures significantly more complex that those currently in Babel are
  out of scope.

  The Babel WG should coordinate with other Working Groups, such as the
  HOMENET WG for likely applicability, the RTGWG and V6OPS WG about
  Source-Specific Routing to support IPv6 multihoming, the PIM WG for
  discussion around multicast, and the MANET WG for considerations around

  The Babel WG should liaise as necessary with the Broadband Forum to
  facilitate use of the Babel Information Model for TR-069.

  Work Items:

  - Produce a revision of RFC 6126 suitable for publication as a Proposed
      -- incorporate in the revision developments since RFC 6126
      -- resolve technical issues found
      -- include in the base specification the extensibility work in RFC
      -- support auto-configuration
      -- consider any important changes based on experience with Babel to

  - Address security needs for BABEL. This may include using the
  techniques in RFC 7298, or other alternatives. Security may be
  included in the base spec or the base spec may normatively reference a
  separate Proposed Standard specification. This is required as part of
  moving Babel to Proposed Standard.

  - Address manageability of Babel by producing a Babel informational
  model to help provide guidance and derive the data models. This
  information model is useful as a common source of information for the
  case where the Customer-Premise Equipment (CPE) is managed by the
  Service Provider (SP) with the Broadband Forum TR-069 protocol and its
  associated data model. To be consistent with the ongoing effort to use
  YANG data models in the Routing Area, a Babel YANG data model should
  be specified to support management of Babel routers.

  - As the Proposed Standard version of Babel is completed, an
  Applicability Statement should be finalized to guide those potentially
  interested in deploying Babel. This Applicability Statement may
  include deployment advice and will be published as an RFC.

  - The Working Group should document its ongoing implementation
  experience with Babel, so that new WG participants can understand the
  state that is driving this work and the experience driving changes.
  This documentation may be on the Working Group's wiki, in
  an internet-draft that isn't expected to be published as an RFC, or a

  - As a non-primary focus, the Working Group may work on multicast
  aspects of Babel.  This may include discussion of any potential issues
  for supporting Babel running with PIM-SM in an auto-configuration
  profile.  It may include exploring Babel carrying separate metrics for
  multicast.  It may include discussion and consultation with the PIM
  WG about Babel providing the ability to build multicast routing
  tables.  With AD and WG agreement, once an approach is understood,
  then a milestone may be added for an associated document targeted as
  Proposed Standard.

  - As a non-primary focus, the Working Group may work on documents
  defining source specific routing extensions for Babel as a way of
  handling IPv6 multihoming.

Goals and Milestones:
  Done     - WG adoption of Babel Applicability draft
  Done     - WG adoption of RFC6126bis
  Done     - WG adoption of Babel Management (Info Model & YANG Model) draft
  Done     - IESG Submission of Babel Applicability draft (Informational)
  Done     - IESG Submission of Babel Information Model draft (Proposed Standard)
  Done     - IESG Submission of RFC6126bis and potentially companion security mechanisms draft (Proposed Standard)
  Done     - IESG Submission of source specific Babel draft (Proposed Standard)
  Done     - IESG Submission of Babel Management draft  (Proposed Standard)
  Done     - IESG submission of IPv4 via IPv6

All charter page changes, including changes to draft-list, rfc-list and milestones:

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