Subject: [babel] Unicast Hellos: please specify your usage scenarios

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:21:08 +0200

I'm re-reading the text I've written for Unicast Hellos, and I'd like to
make sure we get it right.  Could the people who are in favour of adding
Unicast Hellos to the spec please be so kind as to restate your usage
scenarios?

More precisely: if you're planning to implement or to use Unicast Hellos,
could you please say why, how you intend to schedule your Unicast and
Multicast Hellos, and how you intend to use the received Hellos.

Please.  It's important we get this right.

-- Juliusz

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:24:51 -0400

I want them fo the pairwise  keying use case.

On Jun 22, 2017 2:21 PM, "Juliusz Chroboczek" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
>

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 23:39:20 +0200

> I want them fo the pairwise keying use case. 

Can you please explain how Unicast Hellos are used in an implementation
that does pairwise keying, and why you believe pairwise keying cannot be
done without Unicast Hellos?

(I have my ideas on the subject, I'm just trying to make sure that my
ideas are congruent to yours.)

-- Juliusz

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 19:40:48 -0500

> done without Unicast Hellos?

Hm.   Well, in thinking about this, the question arises, how large is the scope for babel multicast?   If it's link scope, then actually including one signature per possible recipient might be okay.   For unicast hellos to work, it's necessary to know the addresses of any servers that will receive the hello.   The number of babel listeners on a particular link can be expected to be quite constrained.

So, perhaps it would be best to clarify whether this is actually an issue before making bold statements as I did previously.