From nobody Mon Nov 2 01:28:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D22E1B359E for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:28:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UCwsb3PQ9FXd for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:28:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B0341B359D for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:28:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by pasz6 with SMTP id z6so143766660pas.2 for ; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:28:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=OB2940rhwRnOMvChd4HYpXDWXSfdqqCR9rp8fYKNNt4=; b=ggwQ9aJDmGIh4WSVaPL8wUS+9qO07Y89cNNGfInDJhZTeK8EnKpIKlFHoKRpk5UmnJ 5KiecpDm3k+GlL+VghESpe7tDaqlNn/+KDsHlwVtL9W0u5Eu7Lh9MQflYqcrlv1sjC21 eyLmvY0QHz1fQNxcXPG0hqPQZjngj7pHV/SCjmXX3PaLVVNqeH0HtyQKe7sOghSFnkf8 kvgcH+o/Q9cx7e7PZQLOixGO9TDtGotnFjHzF48VQeTZQ3s3jb69azEYH6HiBTL0aCXN D3L7CAR4hRKavgR3Gip7TFMJijEXS7uXbbr7hhbTmTpx+cQt64tqbJ36tulVBl4hgWKc pFIQ== X-Received: by 10.69.16.228 with SMTP id fz4mr26356457pbd.164.1446456485792; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:28:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-48-136.meeting.ietf94.jp (dhcp-48-136.meeting.ietf94.jp. [133.93.48.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id yg2sm22764841pbb.79.2015.11.02.01.28.03 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:28:04 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Margaret Cullen In-Reply-To: <87d1vyu816.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 04:28:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <87fv0vw73u.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <01a101d1119c$ccbca320$6635e960$@gmail.com> <87d1vyu816.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> To: Juliusz Chroboczek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org, Russ White <7riw77@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [babel] Babel@IETF todo list X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 09:28:07 -0000 On Oct 28, 2015, at 3:07 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek = wrote: >=20 > I'll stop saying "We at Babel Towers" and try my hand at "We at the = IETF" ;-) >=20 > -- Juliusz Excellent!! Margaret From nobody Mon Nov 2 01:36:24 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A8A1B35C1 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:36:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J8GE0I6Ncgot for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:36:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60F8A1B3573 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:36:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by pacfv9 with SMTP id fv9so150022363pac.3 for ; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:36:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=KIMbq0ejIamJNxHhR41Rz7XUuV/Fgo0jDoW+QlOngRg=; b=sSvS23P26rx6GI0Sq7VRoKnnAc2qQSQQRRySj56GzQ2cKrvSaOZ+PXFPcYP7w0dvoV f7qEbqjxCkQtVEvjle+/QA/CAYzXXcNo8yc3oM21sB8HIHqMQfuErjCPqVCP9OBrO5bH An8MgeUjph3a5dsSZyI/ionvlPRoxWC83SfnUsNn+cwmZiP5emLG11UAUkaD04Z6jPdS KwLLPJ7cXZGISJvedkluCWWfViDBB4aI3v89pu8vf2Yppd5QlLMMKnDxAsm1We09LB4+ uOTq/eaTXgWQ4Y18qtnv88gQZ+bB72HQIUxZv8K/QnDz0fLB3RZyITH0H6WcfJCqcfM7 B2Tw== X-Received: by 10.66.167.101 with SMTP id zn5mr26586151pab.48.1446456977079; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:36:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-48-136.meeting.ietf94.jp (dhcp-48-136.meeting.ietf94.jp. [133.93.48.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id tp6sm22815602pbc.81.2015.11.02.01.36.15 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:36:16 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Margaret Cullen In-Reply-To: <87fv0vw73u.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 04:36:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <87fv0vw73u.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> To: Juliusz Chroboczek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Babel@IETF todo list X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 09:36:19 -0000 Hi Juliusz, > (X) write an experimental draft that describes precisely the minimum > Homenet profile of Babel. I'll write my thoughts on the Homenet > mailing list. I'd be happy to help with this. I see that you have initial drafts = together and I will review them. What else can I do to help? Are we planning, as part of this effort, to get Babel (and related = documents) published as Standards-Track documents? If so, I would also = be happy to work on editing them to meet current IETF = requirements/expectations. Margaret From nobody Mon Nov 2 14:21:05 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75DB1A891C for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:21:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.693 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_DK=1.009, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cytnNBDY2ofi for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:21:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF4A91A88BD for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:21:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1446502860; bh=wKJvRF8ppNvn5htx5aLefUbBw3RWBmtGKIBTXUnkKDI=; h=From:To:Subject:Date; b=Pnjq2ZZs9+zZdJpLy1UZPDGq38x8FOQKPj4vYPd1qUpc+ex2UGLYEvlSh26nZKoKg Ju0WNowjuo+BrKqGpVfnSXEC2VP35rvbrYAePUbVAu5bb6Dtc1Ue/H/Ykn6ZboFThZ 5jWox+vseDgIg3Vz8JqW7+8sNjHXZ9E/fNAX/sJs= Sender: toke@toke.dk Received: by alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 24A4549FD1; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 23:20:59 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: babel@ietf.org Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 23:20:59 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87wpu0avqs.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: [babel] A couple of things that are unclear in the RFC X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 22:21:04 -0000 So a couple of minor details popped up in the patch review of my Babel implementation for the Bird daemon. May be nice to clarify: 1. Is a Router ID of 0 valid? A strict reading of the RFC would suggest it is, but am not sure if that is an omission? 2. How should an implementation treat an update TLV that specifies AE 1 (IPv4 address) and sets flag 0x40 (use address as next router ID)? My guess would be that it should be treated as invalid, but the RFC doesn't explicitly say. 3. The RFC doesn't specify how to treat subsequent TLVs in the same packet if a TLV fails to validate. For some TLVs, most notably the Router ID, just ignoring the malformed TLV could result in subsequent ones being interpreted wrong. So maybe specifying a policy in the RFC is a good idea? 4. The TLV specification includes reserved fields that seem to serve as memory alignment spacers; but doesn't specify that the TLVs themselves need to be aligned. So why are the reserved fields there? Or should there be an alignment requirement? -Toke From nobody Tue Nov 3 08:56:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B221A89A5 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:56:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BIiOJqfa_sqG for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:56:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AEF31A00C0 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:56:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id tA3GuIVF006041 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:56:18 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/56228) with ESMTP id tA3GuIMH025453; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:56:18 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9967D61FA6; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:56:18 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id ctZY6IciCkGW; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:56:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (unknown [172.23.36.54]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 266AD61FA2; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:56:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr) by lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1Ztesa-0008OT-UV; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:56:17 +0100 Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:56:16 +0100 Message-ID: <7imvuvt427.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Margaret Cullen In-Reply-To: References: <87fv0vw73u.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:56:18 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:56:18 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5638E732.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5638E732.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5638E732.001 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5638E732.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5638E732.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5638E732.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Babel@IETF todo list X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 16:56:21 -0000 > I'd be happy to help with this. I see that you have initial drafts > together and I will review them. What else can I do to help? I think I'm going to rewrite the draft in prose (as opposed to the "REQ/Rationale" barking that I've attempted), so please focus on the contents, not the style. > Are we planning, as part of this effort, to get Babel (and related > documents) published as Standards-Track documents? If so, I would also > be happy to work on editing them to meet current IETF > requirements/expectations. Yes, I understand that the Homenet WG is trusting us to do that. My hope would be that we can get a charter and consensus ready, so that we can create a WG in time for a first meeting at Buenos-Aires -- there appears to be momentum right now, let's get the thing moving as soon as possible. (My teaching load decreases dramatically after November 15th.) -- Juliusz From nobody Tue Nov 3 09:05:28 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6AF61A90F6 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:05:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.25 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FTu4nxnyL4th for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:05:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72E2D1B2C58 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:05:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id tA3H5Mc7010230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:05:22 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/56228) with ESMTP id tA3H5MQ1028618; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:05:22 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8195161FA6; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:05:22 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id 5UQHZ6eyML2O; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:05:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (unknown [172.23.36.54]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DC2961FA3; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:05:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr) by lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1Ztf1I-0000GZ-9J; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:05:16 +0100 Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:05:16 +0100 Message-ID: <7ilhaft3n7.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= In-Reply-To: <87wpu0avqs.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87wpu0avqs.fsf@toke.dk> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:05:22 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:05:22 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5638E952.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5638E952.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5638E952.000 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5638E952.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5638E952.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5638E952.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] A couple of things that are unclear in the RFC X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:05:26 -0000 > 1. Is a Router ID of 0 valid? A strict reading of the RFC would suggest > it is, but am not sure if that is an omission? It's perfectly valid. Router-ids are opaque identifiers, 0 is not special in any way. > 2. How should an implementation treat an update TLV that specifies AE 1 > (IPv4 address) and sets flag 0x40 (use address as next router ID)? > My guess would be that it should be treated as invalid, but the RFC > doesn't explicitly say. Agreed. Either specify how the IPv4 address is padded to 64 bits, or declare it as invalid. (No current implementation sends IPv4 addresses with flag 0x40. Babeld interprets such TLVs by padding the IPv4 address to 64 bits with zeroes on the left.) > 3. The RFC doesn't specify how to treat subsequent TLVs in the same > packet if a TLV fails to validate. For some TLVs, most notably the > Router ID, just ignoring the malformed TLV could result in subsequent > ones being interpreted wrong. So maybe specifying a policy in the RFC > is a good idea? Agreed. > 4. The TLV specification includes reserved fields that seem to serve as > memory alignment spacers; but doesn't specify that the TLVs themselves > need to be aligned. No, the TLVs don't need to be aligned. > So why are the reserved fields there? The original plan was that an implementation MAY choose to align the TLVs. I've since realised that the benefits of alignment are negligible, and hence never used the possibility to align TLVs. If we decide to change the packet format, the reserved fields should be dropped. However, since they only appear in the rarer TLVs (the bulk of Babel traffic is due to Update TLVs, which don't contain any reserved fields), it doesn't matter enough to warrant an incompatible protocol change. -- Juliusz From nobody Tue Nov 3 09:12:36 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFED1B2D2C for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:12:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.693 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_DK=1.009, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VSAr-NTYVgPY for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 672C41B2D26 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1446570751; bh=9XUG8Rt4XfoT/EE6oKl4fA5KNWztGlnpFFI4qZBD7XE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AQbggwUnXBcC7IoB5aYNwi/zZ96r1dVjO1JQFnxMnFwOdma3Zi0OdnTb0ba1zn6Jz WAOeZhgYstmwFiTBBAUtI+Dd+ffmtYdUEKnkDteLwVsNJ85vCX2J1VFpSxd+ZbRACx Nph8AwRDAtXIx2+kK5OUwpxl5TQ5YisN+nT3SoUE= Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3C4254E6BA6; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:12:30 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Juliusz Chroboczek References: <87wpu0avqs.fsf@toke.dk> <7ilhaft3n7.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:12:30 +0100 In-Reply-To: <7ilhaft3n7.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> (Juliusz Chroboczek's message of "Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:05:16 +0100") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <871tc7c8ht.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] A couple of things that are unclear in the RFC X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:12:35 -0000 Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >> 1. Is a Router ID of 0 valid? A strict reading of the RFC would suggest >> it is, but am not sure if that is an omission? > > It's perfectly valid. Router-ids are opaque identifiers, 0 is not special > in any way. Right, that's what I thought. Upon thinking about it, mind you; my initial reaction was to just do if(!router_id) to check if a valid router ID had been received. Going to change that, obviously, but maybe point it out in the RFC for the benefit of others as naive as me? :) >> 2. How should an implementation treat an update TLV that specifies AE 1 >> (IPv4 address) and sets flag 0x40 (use address as next router ID)? >> My guess would be that it should be treated as invalid, but the RFC >> doesn't explicitly say. > > Agreed. Either specify how the IPv4 address is padded to 64 bits, or > declare it as invalid. > > (No current implementation sends IPv4 addresses with flag 0x40. Babeld > interprets such TLVs by padding the IPv4 address to 64 bits with > zeroes on the left.) Well, in Bird, the router ID *is* an IPv4 address; right now I'm padding it to get it to 64 bits. Not sure if the complexity of specifying padding is worth it to save a single TLV, though? >> 4. The TLV specification includes reserved fields that seem to serve as >> memory alignment spacers; but doesn't specify that the TLVs themselves >> need to be aligned. > > No, the TLVs don't need to be aligned. Right, that's what I thought. >> So why are the reserved fields there? > > The original plan was that an implementation MAY choose to align the > TLVs. I've since realised that the benefits of alignment are > negligible, and hence never used the possibility to align TLVs. OK. Fine with me. Will fix my implementation to not assume alignment :) > If we decide to change the packet format, the reserved fields should > be dropped. However, since they only appear in the rarer TLVs (the > bulk of Babel traffic is due to Update TLVs, which don't contain any > reserved fields), it doesn't matter enough to warrant an incompatible > protocol change. Agreed. -Toke From nobody Tue Nov 3 09:26:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5201A1B2F48 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:26:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.65 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_27=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OyCcDwqzCJQF for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:26:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F9071AD10A for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:26:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id tA3HQFMu020172; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:26:15 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E069661FAD; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:26:15 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id PH3v-8KgRweh; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:26:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (unknown [172.23.36.54]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65A7061FA3; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:26:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr) by lanthane.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ZtfLa-0000KK-6F; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:26:14 +0100 Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:26:14 +0100 Message-ID: <7ih9l3t2o9.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= In-Reply-To: <871tc7c8ht.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87wpu0avqs.fsf@toke.dk> <7ilhaft3n7.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <871tc7c8ht.fsf@toke.dk> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:26:15 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5638EE37.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5638EE37.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5638EE37.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] A couple of things that are unclear in the RFC X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:26:18 -0000 >>> 2. How should an implementation treat an update TLV that specifies AE 1 >>> (IPv4 address) and sets flag 0x40 (use address as next router ID)? >>> My guess would be that it should be treated as invalid, but the RFC >>> doesn't explicitly say. >> >> Agreed. Either specify how the IPv4 address is padded to 64 bits, or >> declare it as invalid. >> >> (No current implementation sends IPv4 addresses with flag 0x40. Babeld >> interprets such TLVs by padding the IPv4 address to 64 bits with >> zeroes on the left.) > > Well, in Bird, the router ID *is* an IPv4 address; right now I'm padding > it to get it to 64 bits. Not sure if the complexity of specifying > padding is worth it to save a single TLV, though? Option 1: if(addrlen >= 8) memcpy(router_id, addr + 8 - addrlen, 8); else goto invalid; Option 2: if(addrlen >= 8) memcpy(router_id + 8 - addrlen, addr, addrlen); else memcpy(router_id, addr + addrlen - 8, 8); So I don't think there's much extra complexity, and it does save one TLV per update in extreme cases (IPv4-only pure mesh networks with router-ids derived from the IPv4 address). -- Juliusz From nobody Tue Nov 3 09:27:13 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112AF1B2F91 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:27:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xzvx_PtDu8mG for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:27:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD65F1B2F67 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:27:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by wmff134 with SMTP id f134so90266294wmf.1 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:27:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7Az6x8hLnxomdPsWrh7cXaYvbGQet1Bei3bRe2MPitY=; b=u62ClnAj8iyZutSEMaABtwFUlL4iMQaWTYjh6ZCgBYzxdL1LNuKFJE3pBoKuckFPjK VWXxucifeoeRH+/xzL4TmTf47yHS5L8hkUzUUUcCMbmRWcZYdJxXoIxtabBNEZl+hiad VysYsFa+9gx58T/meCJIb1OvzQKiI3AKPOTvXDBOJN8XHI1IHZbCh0qYaDXA1XkEFaFP jUxGB+Uh3ZQ+S7v1y9lGTknUhxcjCQ0q+yq0M9z7aIhPWtCcyh8LDak4KW5QuM6VJV+K 1ACVb5f9HbS0WTvWlGLhqCLkZOysmsHAyN4/n8nbo1WQsY9HVPoMCcLiu5ThATGyNgOX tYAg== X-Received: by 10.28.94.194 with SMTP id s185mr21487378wmb.90.1446571629326; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:27:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.27.178.95 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:26:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <871tc7c8ht.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87wpu0avqs.fsf@toke.dk> <7ilhaft3n7.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <871tc7c8ht.fsf@toke.dk> From: Henning Rogge Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:26:39 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org, Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [babel] A couple of things that are unclear in the RFC X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:27:12 -0000 On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: > Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >>> 4. The TLV specification includes reserved fields that seem to serve as >>> memory alignment spacers; but doesn't specify that the TLVs themselves >>> need to be aligned. >> >> No, the TLVs don't need to be aligned. > > Right, that's what I thought. > >>> So why are the reserved fields there? >> >> The original plan was that an implementation MAY choose to align the >> TLVs. I've since realised that the benefits of alignment are >> negligible, and hence never used the possibility to align TLVs. > > OK. Fine with me. Will fix my implementation to not assume alignment :) Assuming alignment is a very subtle way to break a protocol implementation... I still want three weekends of debugging back because someone did it with an plugin for our olsr.org OLSRv1 implementation. Henning Rogge From nobody Tue Nov 3 09:32:00 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381AC1A8732 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:31:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.693 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_DK=1.009, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1dM7POlRFd7V for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:31:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0853B1B3308 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:31:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1446571915; bh=SEMltAxYjUlQqinTbQNHDv/Fd6CEOCzGWdQYGVF8p80=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=VLOoNCS8AC+z0JWlFbOCNO87VoKaZoNinWcE05twhoKGQewJlfQRGk1xrRwn5fFx4 kaLi65G5KE0b1tYUNBEb8a+4zvL3j1T30WhprvXHzy7FLSpXZPwA9lUB0gOrn2WTxD rvRqMz1PdpMQStYu8QhtBXi5BLFPljytCVSW/cvg= Sender: toke@toke.dk Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 81DF24E6C81; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:31:54 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Henning Rogge References: <87wpu0avqs.fsf@toke.dk> <7ilhaft3n7.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <871tc7c8ht.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:31:54 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Henning Rogge's message of "Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:26:39 +0100") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87k2pzat11.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org, Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [babel] A couple of things that are unclear in the RFC X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:31:59 -0000 Henning Rogge writes: >> OK. Fine with me. Will fix my implementation to not assume alignment :) > > Assuming alignment is a very subtle way to break a protocol > implementation... I still want three weekends of debugging back > because someone did it with an plugin for our olsr.org OLSRv1 > implementation. Yup, that was probably going to come back and bite me at some point; thankfully it was caught in patch review :) -Toke From nobody Tue Nov 3 23:16:28 2015 Return-Path: <7riw77@gmail.com> X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0471B29AE for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 23:16:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0XUiY3BC5tC8 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 23:16:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com (mail-pa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D43D1B29AD for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 23:16:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by padhx2 with SMTP id hx2so36590645pad.1 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 23:16:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=elhKjoDtYgyoD23RykBBhANVnbzac/uPt7ypRn8UcW4=; b=NMA8CiyV5hoYrrO5dmGRdCJi6O8LOnqlMnepd3WD9AdwmdsCzpctcyLOsCYK9YQ7hT g833eLjnxV5c9FKGuloxlk2e3wScR4ZFxe3uWXbjY2mXguewgNEH2AZjuHam0W2v+8tH qr6r7cFXbtsa13RFTTMB8tcXk/HpNF17wb1NUIu0GFOOJH9IawneRHlpDmT6JsFMQx8c m48tLQ8l79d/Ivtd9DLFBOLMy85NG4SaEgDvjyWEiqtUu8iBH6h8A0fQ2x3z9NXTLPUX XeUSJd4uErNFXjtQul+HKqM6l340IkM17Rwehw3LL8hkW1drJ9QedSNLlBIEsTNZ4GWI Avfg== X-Received: by 10.66.196.168 with SMTP id in8mr38878444pac.27.1446621386172; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 23:16:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from Russ (dhcp-70-145.meeting.ietf94.jp. [133.93.70.145]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id cn4sm33333367pbc.94.2015.11.03.23.16.24 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Nov 2015 23:16:25 -0800 (PST) From: "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> To: "'Juliusz Chroboczek'" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?'Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen'?= References: <87wpu0avqs.fsf@toke.dk> <7ilhaft3n7.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <871tc7c8ht.fsf@toke.dk> <7ih9l3t2o9.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <7ih9l3t2o9.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 02:15:58 -0500 Message-ID: <01ee01d116d0$b5853670$208fa350$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQCX7dA2BqYJB47AGTfWsUxUmYbDIwIhpqa1ArZvUykBzKiFgaDInycQ Content-Language: en-us Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] A couple of things that are unclear in the RFC X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 07:16:27 -0000 > > Well, in Bird, the router ID *is* an IPv4 address; right now I'm > > padding it to get it to 64 bits. Not sure if the complexity of > > specifying padding is worth it to save a single TLV, though? IMHO -- don't tie the router id to an IP address. OSPF and BGP have been bound up in the mess for years, with all sorts of bad consequences. Instead, just specify a 64 bit number and -- 1. Provide some suggestions on where to get this number from (hash across all ipv4 addresses, hash across layer 2 addresses, manual configuration, eui64 address on local box, etc.) 2. Provide something to do when there's a duplicate detected -- somehow the new device needs to be told there's a problem, and asked to change their id. :-) Russ From nobody Wed Nov 4 02:23:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F611B2CB1 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 02:23:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.693 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_DK=1.009, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6YR4eGY7vHGK for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 02:23:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08D2F1B2CAB for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 02:23:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1446632586; bh=ax537y8Ecn8C+BMduTn2ukwB8h8zH0yxi80C2UwpMDQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Ab6KGXdzuN1pMb+Vf9rHrd3JbEyRJEtfu5L5/fYZJAZQjyBkYKMM3WXCbg94Jq6zE 2p3FBO8eoJJM08pq37wyXox/uXGfAqIIKb0YngD1uVLvrjFZMNQTjefsRdoHSt+VSo pGI/NhSLDKDahSITPa13McExAug5RwJAOcgz2SMI= Sender: toke@toke.dk Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 421CE4EB6DB; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:23:05 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> References: <87wpu0avqs.fsf@toke.dk> <7ilhaft3n7.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <871tc7c8ht.fsf@toke.dk> <7ih9l3t2o9.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <01ee01d116d0$b5853670$208fa350$@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 11:23:05 +0100 In-Reply-To: <01ee01d116d0$b5853670$208fa350$@gmail.com> (Russ White's message of "Wed, 4 Nov 2015 02:15:58 -0500") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <877fly9i7q.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org, 'Juliusz Chroboczek' Subject: Re: [babel] A couple of things that are unclear in the RFC X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:23:10 -0000 "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> writes: > IMHO -- don't tie the router id to an IP address. OSPF and BGP have been > bound up in the mess for years, with all sorts of bad consequences. Instead, > just specify a 64 bit number and -- > > 1. Provide some suggestions on where to get this number from (hash across > all ipv4 addresses, hash across layer 2 addresses, manual configuration, > eui64 address on local box, etc.) This is exactly what the Babel RFC does: It specifies that a Router ID is an arbitrary 64-bit number which "SHOULD be assigned in modified EUI-64 format" (section 4.1.2). However, in my Bird implementation I'm re-using the Bird router ID, which is an IP address; for what I'm guessing is exactly the legacy reasons you are referring to. > 2. Provide something to do when there's a duplicate detected -- > somehow the new device needs to be told there's a problem, and asked > to change their id. This mechanism does not currently exist in Babel. Not sure there's any way to detect that; anything else you see on the network with your own Router ID might just be your own routes being relayed back to you, no? -Toke From nobody Wed Nov 4 03:59:16 2015 Return-Path: <7riw77@gmail.com> X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44D91B2DE1 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 03:59:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qfkG9PIInohi for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 03:59:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5F0D1B2DE6 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 03:59:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by pabfh17 with SMTP id fh17so51667373pab.0 for ; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 03:59:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=CiDZZ5p/Lx0tC5ZdBmkl0lxNNaWnqL4joa8Q7EnMir0=; b=09w8fO4f6FORE/yzqyJ2oLt2rGIXg/Lbc/ChYY31Oy3NNZgPE4AoojL7Nuv9xqPBCV MfF2uUDHnDazGebpMo+GUmgcSb1iDsj3IV4JnZFk/pFlRguhwmv4slhcJqGotSS/5e/B WBP2EnrXsjmHcfMSLDaRLcvhnOE+0vmpNq3yKtMgIKMgy9ZCkEvjz56YBTGpXe5WF2m3 AtGRKg1WjOQX256xHMXW9+BlYmmBgbcPLUOjCNjp7qSXz+Qmou+0EylWYk1kxlS4Hd7J RGDojEMin3aZJqT/Ubm5/9lxFUFgxRSZdUF/LfXoCh0JvlZIGWl8Lul7iKcCI1XCyAaQ wtyA== X-Received: by 10.68.251.170 with SMTP id zl10mr1376461pbc.106.1446638354617; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 03:59:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from Russ ([2001:c40:0:3064:c162:9d5f:3e18:2934]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id po4sm1702469pbb.64.2015.11.04.03.59.12 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Nov 2015 03:59:14 -0800 (PST) From: "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> To: References: <87wpu0avqs.fsf@toke.dk> <7ilhaft3n7.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <871tc7c8ht.fsf@toke.dk> <7ih9l3t2o9.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <01ee01d116d0$b5853670$208fa350$@gmail.com> <877fly9i7q.fsf@toke.dk> In-Reply-To: <877fly9i7q.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 06:59:05 -0500 Message-ID: <02e401d116f8$36e590d0$a4b0b270$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQCX7dA2BqYJB47AGTfWsUxUmYbDIwIhpqa1ArZvUykBzKiFgQKNfDWgAeVSrQ6gpVW+0A== Content-Language: en-us Archived-At: Cc: babel@ietf.org, 'Juliusz Chroboczek' Subject: Re: [babel] A couple of things that are unclear in the RFC X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 11:59:16 -0000 > > 1. Provide some suggestions on where to get this number from (hash > > across all ipv4 addresses, hash across layer 2 addresses, manual > > configuration, > > eui64 address on local box, etc.) >=20 > This is exactly what the Babel RFC does: It specifies that a Router ID = is an > arbitrary 64-bit number which "SHOULD be assigned in modified > EUI-64 format" (section 4.1.2). Okay -- I would try to make it a point not to use an IP address as the = router id. This might seem silly, but it makes a difference when you = have bleary eyes at 2am not to confuse the router id with an ip = address... Making things easier to sort mentally makes troubleshooting = easier. :-) > > 2. Provide something to do when there's a duplicate detected -- > > somehow the new device needs to be told there's a problem, and asked > > to change their id. >=20 > This mechanism does not currently exist in Babel. Not sure there's any = way > to detect that; anything else you see on the network with your own = Router > ID might just be your own routes being relayed back to you, no? I had, in the back of my head, EIGRP externals and duplicate router id = detection. Of course it's an issue if there are two routers with the = same id in the network -- but we'd have to think through how to detect = it without breaking anything. Short of including a cryptographic hash as = part of some sort of router advertisement, there's no real way to tell = if two routers with the same id are just parallel links, or if they're = actually different routers. In a protocol designed for pretty much = autonomic operation, being able to detect this might be a good thing. = More thought needed here... :-) :-) Russ From nobody Wed Nov 4 06:12:26 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287981B3007 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 06:12:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kkLEzPWpmwXh for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 06:12:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 486F71B3013 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 06:12:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id tA4ECHBH013804 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:12:17 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/56228) with ESMTP id tA4ECFZs005066; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:12:15 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABCFC61FEA; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:12:15 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id 0rpvCI5kANQr; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:11:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from trurl.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr (col75-1-78-194-40-74.fbxo.proxad.net [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C9C161FAB; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:11:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:11:59 +0100 Message-ID: <87vb9hyhu8.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <02e401d116f8$36e590d0$a4b0b270$@gmail.com> References: <87wpu0avqs.fsf@toke.dk> <7ilhaft3n7.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <871tc7c8ht.fsf@toke.dk> <7ih9l3t2o9.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <01ee01d116d0$b5853670$208fa350$@gmail.com> <877fly9i7q.fsf@toke.dk> <02e401d116f8$36e590d0$a4b0b270$@gmail.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:12:18 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:12:17 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 563A1241.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 563A123F.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 563A1241.000 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 563A123F.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 563A1241.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 563A123F.001 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Cc: toke@toke.dk, babel@ietf.org Subject: [babel] Duplicate Router-ID X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:12:25 -0000 > I had, in the back of my head, EIGRP externals and duplicate router id > detection. [...] In a protocol designed for pretty much autonomic > operation, being able to detect this might be a good thing. I agree, and this is the reason why Babel router-ids are 64 bits long rather than 32-bits like in EIGRP -- to make the probability of collision vanishingly small. https://xkcd.com/221/ > Of course it's an issue if there are two routers with the same id in the > network -- but we'd have to think through how to detect it without > breaking anything. If there's no duplication of router-ids, then all routes announced with router's A router-id should be unfeasible for A. Therefore, if A sees a feasible route with its router-id, then it has detected duplication. If A and B share a router-id, then either A or B is able to detect the issue (but not necessarily both). The only caveat -- if A detects router-id duplication just after it reboots, then it cannot determine whether it's colliding with a different router B or seeing routes that were announced by A's previous incarnation. -- Juliusz From nobody Thu Nov 5 17:25:44 2015 Return-Path: <7riw77@gmail.com> X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA31F1A6FF0 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 17:25:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ADMITS_SPAM=2.699, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7b3-dnvWnnYI for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 17:25:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com (mail-pa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8D0B1ACE0B for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 17:25:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by pacdm15 with SMTP id dm15so80141906pac.3 for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 17:25:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=So/lyQCZ4N9T0/flLfOQWUPoXLT1Cx54JmKeBtRw8HI=; b=QMI0jEUH9a1zSPpujY7y0tYjeF5D0gS1tf+ZAQA8GtjsnLaiYlhm+d/42f5hOOQ50S 9flm3s46Tme+9z5n1Uy18GMbAg2q+nLznx/9wbrhwY8/bkw4VkcR8itvHtmubiRUwZQP mHqAPtpdTmUmeOLmOxtLen3LprdG/60XWyf6XQzTgT2j0B3TKqKQJvMNvDkDgvzsuVFx 7lgLQ0JvnVb6tHai0oya+78/tlzwTm1oMv/nmxKN8YilayP/dd2VcAlBKBuhBUOnoqdR RmLOBoTPOhwAiA+BQjrRlX8v14sAkuZPV68rWVfdnyNRPYWE/eVtGMTGQ9J80Uv5uhMk InHg== X-Received: by 10.69.25.73 with SMTP id io9mr13254620pbd.87.1446773142399; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 17:25:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from Russ ([210.143.141.82]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bc2sm10226701pbd.2.2015.11.05.17.25.40 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Nov 2015 17:25:41 -0800 (PST) From: "Russ White" <7riw77@gmail.com> To: "'Juliusz Chroboczek'" References: <87wpu0avqs.fsf@toke.dk> <7ilhaft3n7.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <871tc7c8ht.fsf@toke.dk> <7ih9l3t2o9.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <01ee01d116d0$b5853670$208fa350$@gmail.com> <877fly9i7q.fsf@toke.dk> <02e401d116f8$36e590d0$a4b0b270$@gmail.com> <87vb9hyhu8.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> In-Reply-To: <87vb9hyhu8.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:25:33 -0500 Message-ID: <027c01d11832$0a697590$1f3c60b0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQCX7dA2BqYJB47AGTfWsUxUmYbDIwIhpqa1ArZvUykBzKiFgQKNfDWgAeVSrQ4CYD0qzAGr8XUmoIdpRCA= Content-Language: en-us Archived-At: Cc: toke@toke.dk, babel@ietf.org Subject: Re: [babel] Duplicate Router-ID X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 01:25:43 -0000 > > Of course it's an issue if there are two routers with the same id in > > the network -- but we'd have to think through how to detect it without > > breaking anything. > > If there's no duplication of router-ids, then all routes announced with > router's A router-id should be unfeasible for A. Therefore, if A sees a feasible > route with its router-id, then it has detected duplication. Actually, this is a useful construction -- you could: 1. Add an additional "router route" to your advertisements. This is an advertisement of a zero cost route to a second unique number, let's just use the term nonce for the moment, that will survive a reboot, and cannot be manually configured by the user. 2. When you come back up, don't advertise this "router route" for some time (assume max propagation time through the network, perhaps). 3. On booting, if you see a "router route" advertisement from your own id, then check the "nonce," and if they match -- it's yours. If not, then it's a duplicate. This effectively makes the odds of a duplicate really high, because you have a locally derived number that can't be user configured, and can't be changed, combined with the router id, which could be misconfigured. Just an idea... Haven't thought it through entirely. :-) Russ