From nobody Mon Mar 9 21:26:46 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B4FF3A0F33; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 21:26:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 zg4iNe7oIhXU; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 21:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd2b.google.com (mail-io1-xd2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) (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 14B663A0B91; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 21:26:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2b.google.com with SMTP id k4so11475212ior.4; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 21:26:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=v9dx6MpzsL0qdTPqL6y+N3yS6HgMfB1vAbYZ8Zyy5IE=; b=HxX9w6QJN04dkMiiNZynnbEZVKQRq/QxiEN7voXI/uO7ImR6yKiVEbBR5qV2qtCqLv t8VbSdQzNZ11ZVqFCANFxMDN2FLFSVJQdmtd1/GHdd4znG3RpVqy63wlLdUxRmL0SqTg q+AWCQaZ5Lpjdvq+6TsHAO1C211jYjtC4v/bJErmho5rA4WOTRdiRBquDl4p+fD/frjz cPGj6yu56h7KJJ9BGkAhU2Vnzt0SFt5JK9CpWMTaneS+xOCG751WUXpFCzM311SzDiXQ WU3M2CmCF7TAzcSTzDOdMs/wbdV1QsIlCmzGkujB404KaU1CmgfdA3XoWXfXshPdTarV isTw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=v9dx6MpzsL0qdTPqL6y+N3yS6HgMfB1vAbYZ8Zyy5IE=; b=OqG4h0qNiRCct1GrtNNoQMsPLIRW3g0jUAfEWkeyVkalRqdafDXtFZ0TOssgVgZ/Kb 1R2MHFcdD5dGpt7D+RGRA1Ug3a6WMe07UFc4628DslSZqBMjDhzKeTfNDiBGCsCbEWzx sVH+s13V0tAP2/mDi9eVsKUEDidOXnPrfVy2q0AcpU4zqhIDCmIZjlehA/MPvaOVUCdb EpCYqvVZ49CeQGPDXeDOEZomA92BE6/JTH0cvCgs+gMdJAZTa0GcDWVjFd3+G396asam v8/DfpKYozOf+ZKy0YcGYy8sUCKpK4GTMHxafKyV7vEitbI/3Ag+t/zA65dVCMIg8Lzd Z5CA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1Z//fqN/mShLIWBA0bjTJdHdgQa5se2lzcq7hWezNrZN6GHAmC IXuYF+ogncmsdhpUIN1RdT78dHX0M8RyQwftNxlCR23H X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuecg5FrH8GchirwSJtESC8xmRLCy68K9a4PmpAAw+rRu33UOF5PeM1iYyz6r0pbiaPwYeCsWWuXYO8FYYF8PI= X-Received: by 2002:a02:b86:: with SMTP id 128mr4020911jad.39.1583814393418; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 21:26:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Donald Eastlake Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 00:26:22 -0400 Message-ID: To: Babel at IETF Cc: babel-chairs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Cancelling the Vancouver BABEL WG meeting X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 10 Mar 2020 04:26:44 -0000 Hi, Thus far there have been no requests to present to the Babel WG meeting at the Vancouver IETF meeting. Also, I will be unable to attend due to my employer adopting a policy prohibiting travel due to the COVID-19 virus. Many other companies are also adopting restrictive measures that will stop their employees from attending the Vancouver. So, at this point, cancelling the meeting seems best. Likely we will look into arranging a virtual meeting in April or May. If there is some reason you think we have to meet in Vancouver, please speak up immediately. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com From nobody Tue Mar 10 07:51:04 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0CD3A149D; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 07:50:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 PVE3bcZabF9F; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 07:50:54 -0700 (PDT) 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 0788E3A147B; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 07:50:53 -0700 (PDT) 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/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id 02AEopHD017014; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:50:51 +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 967E9BA3A2; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:50:51 +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 36Z3bfAOfk76; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:50:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A010BA3A0; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:50:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:50:49 +0100 Message-ID: <878sk8gt6e.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Donald Eastlake Cc: Babel at IETF , babel-chairs In-Reply-To: References: 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, 10 Mar 2020 15:50:51 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5E67A94B.003 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5E67A94B.003 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 : 5E67A94B.003 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Cancelling the Vancouver BABEL WG meeting X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 10 Mar 2020 14:51:03 -0000 > Thus far there have been no requests to present to the Babel WG > meeting at the Vancouver IETF meeting. Also, I will be unable to > attend due to my employer adopting a policy prohibiting travel due to > the COVID-19 virus. Many other companies are also adopting restrictive > measures that will stop their employees from attending the Vancouver. > So, at this point, cancelling the meeting seems best. Likely we will > look into arranging a virtual meeting in April or May. If there is > some reason you think we have to meet in Vancouver, please speak up > immediately. I think that's the reasonable thing. We're all concentrating on getting the currently reviewed documents out, until that happens, there's little energy left to start new work. -- Juliusz From nobody Tue Mar 10 18:53:29 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D8F63A0E59; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 18:53:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 g76vaRg5mXij; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 18:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (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 338823A0E40; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 18:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id t26so255721ios.11; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 18:53:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=arMhPp2TPBUP/wmDu6pfjgoZTGMF2g4Zpfpj+pDmc18=; b=T7qzo01GbFlPPkUV08LMnwb/9NgqkShFP88CNxVHSVZjX43eqym7eKCZb+WErcyyYu 2b36OTRI5mfYsz2NWUPi0xmNk99ZJ377LV6jASBDCMOjkBRE578q8MGmd/LZIcRaH4rL aU498ul9VWqABuvEsHrAg/c73FDo82YkQVRBdkb8wT/Cnyi/b0LcV+yjLmuJwu7FChZm r/R/cpKSSoWNrgu7zPgFMxAOiC0660NF6xvK7D77C2twxzVehR3M6G0JEBLM/+qEFsvP P1P07Um1QRLtS1uDd87W+8mjXe0Yzq+4bdG+YdIklTAB+g0Bfy07H7dqoQ0jzxf9zuvM mvlQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=arMhPp2TPBUP/wmDu6pfjgoZTGMF2g4Zpfpj+pDmc18=; b=cXimnb+P2od6H00HhkiQekwfk5YhWuLabTbja+lnMLEgV8eFSu8XblFMSNy3VEk69j +cxB1H/TY0xmmC7b4AozzI45JmkJVMjWI3JySqp74FaxJRyM+jZY0+dhAUDldnZX8PJK uRkhYfpSHJ0uY/kjKRxnf6O9z/ab60rt1jrHPlYHcKzo98D7C2GyB3fJgjMQNLwXzYdz ui49AuoRGrVVdsne1MbQxo7LW0myKxAliIIzlj6HqElTRpJbOB3KvWSJI/MQjfU1j3qY QE5KxALJmZUC2AG76fTLKQWaDWhpw4KyNvadnJfrV3/RQO/v4HTBno6syEjss//Xxm37 OjXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ17mk+PHzA/DC89Jej6T+EnZcbYxdmN5+cbCDBXkCwnm3SSexO6 0HflWST9g3XuIuTFF/P0PUifQICXBg+LDj2RTT1yjcwPa2U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vusn0E5/yC6+CjxpNf9cPDz3hfmYx6T2QLkdzy+vqYFMJMTGWG3XaVIeP0RS8FJf8N4X+limPKzpRPW0evwE0Q= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:f205:: with SMTP id q5mr789638ioh.167.1583891595115; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 18:53:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <878sk8gt6e.wl-jch@irif.fr> In-Reply-To: <878sk8gt6e.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:53:04 -0400 Message-ID: To: Babel at IETF Cc: babel-chairs , Juliusz Chroboczek Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Cancelling the Vancouver BABEL WG meeting X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 11 Mar 2020 01:53:28 -0000 This has been somewhat overtaken by events as the Vancouver IETF meeting has been cancelled: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/XenAlx4Nw6Jmg69QpXRUOwbzsXY/ So the the Babel WG meeting in Vancouver is cancelled. We should look towards an interim teleconferencing meeting, perhaps in April. Such a meeting would require at least two weeks notice. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:50 AM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > > Thus far there have been no requests to present to the Babel WG > > meeting at the Vancouver IETF meeting. Also, I will be unable to > > attend due to my employer adopting a policy prohibiting travel due to > > the COVID-19 virus. Many other companies are also adopting restrictive > > measures that will stop their employees from attending the Vancouver. > > So, at this point, cancelling the meeting seems best. Likely we will > > look into arranging a virtual meeting in April or May. If there is > > some reason you think we have to meet in Vancouver, please speak up > > immediately. > > I think that's the reasonable thing. We're all concentrating on getting > the currently reviewed documents out, until that happens, there's little > energy left to start new work. > > -- Juliusz From nobody Thu Mar 12 09:54:46 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1F53A0D93 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:54:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 6_aP2HQf9w0I for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:54:42 -0700 (PDT) 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 8EDDB3A0D52 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:54:42 -0700 (PDT) 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/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id 02CGsbiL017506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:54:37 +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/relay2/82085) with ESMTP id 02CGsbHc007915; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:54:37 +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 5590DE51E0; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:54:37 +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 rbvo9UoC0D6c; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:54:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from lanthane.irif.fr (unknown [172.23.36.89]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6541E51DA; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:54:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:54:35 +0100 Message-ID: <8736adzf78.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: babel@ietf.org CC: theophile.bastian@ens.fr, Donald Eastlake User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:54:37 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:54:37 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5E6A694D.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5E6A694D.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5E6A694D.002 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5E6A694D.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 : 5E6A694D.002 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5E6A694D.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: Subject: [babel] No experimental range in the AE registry X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:54:45 -0000 Dear all, Théo (in copy of this mail) and myself are currently working on an exciting new extension to the protocol, which Théo will describe in another mail. We have just realised that we have a problem: there's no experimental range in the AE registry. I therefore propose to reserve the AE range 224-254 for experimental use in the next revision of rfc6126bis. Any objections? Donald, is that okay at this stage? Thanks, -- Juliusz From nobody Thu Mar 12 11:29:04 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7DDF3A0F27 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:29:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 J1FCQ3EbdlqB for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (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 A9BB53A0F2A for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id b13so5681080lfb.12 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:29:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zQA/LbVPKSM3p1Ew9LewXdOkul0tNs60UXgUcERa/Ds=; b=ZvaryUJsGzL0WQuvDjEMkbtmSxVA5ovDAoV/d2DrAWxKu/N5Jf5wOYhCgWweuNjnNt ZEq52gJ5THXgJ/FiYRTAR/30OLM6TAHtPd5a1QBsE3MGKtNIxF5afrI08WMofJf7BzmZ 6/fTCmbjgCfdIJ5/UhgjSKvHzrwlaZZLaq+c7RE8GjhA71Q0NIMdGcqAX/aNUr8XfuM0 AfmAvE5X0H3BqExmgDwKtDtwuH6m0TNS+Y3ohVUBn2yeeIWg14rSUhK+UTfk4cJbarrD /35sGnMu/m0GuYXh9mYHB1NrcVMs4W6sbPcgA170PL9/oCYz8XPasda2JjXQuwCKCRSc bKLA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zQA/LbVPKSM3p1Ew9LewXdOkul0tNs60UXgUcERa/Ds=; b=M6AiDIpnH16q+YdIxYBKY4RKaJEyo7G3TzhCoa1wkGCQQrfEPdupmWdBjvj/KpMvsc TDRS0IADKTrkJptUOldwX6VmV+29t453fhlTo9psu7BQJYNhLOKS98QUNAMZo099jVcZ pieYTaqG+QeqorhxYJkvdjCysPIqor17yBfpvoE2DKjLU6O6Yc67SNuwGAxJuc+wclV0 Lyl4kA6Y+jddr/sFVntGNAdZpgWystSYZbLsvKsC+e4gNaf3Msg+ao/zjMMwOhQA9mgj zvio0f4mGMTuYYEDKP5bmd1/FjJ6II9AQdYEErz0atGRmBNQFAY24eOqMvRtOYg8S18R iLBA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0c1oFCkXco6W+IyN1SqkcRbHzz3vb2Sml+x/RySJpDa8OA4iDZ lh3gU1GJJUMT6GidKWrjDWZh69WItTuA7fQmQIY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtdQVmIObQ9M9/8iJ2jdMoTZM3Uw5tLpirdz7sKNq8r9TMPZHG8ef25tYJqXlefoH2M7V5UTd54KZy/j0ZU0LU= X-Received: by 2002:a19:6749:: with SMTP id e9mr3670412lfj.122.1584037738933; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:28:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8736adzf78.wl-jch@irif.fr> In-Reply-To: <8736adzf78.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: David Schinazi Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:28:48 -0700 Message-ID: To: Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: Babel at IETF , Donald Eastlake , theophile.bastian@ens.fr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bd71c005a0ac86fe" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] No experimental range in the AE registry X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 18:29:03 -0000 --000000000000bd71c005a0ac86fe Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That sounds like a very good change to me, I support making it if the WG agrees. David On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:54 AM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Dear all, > > Th=C3=A9o (in copy of this mail) and myself are currently working on an > exciting new extension to the protocol, which Th=C3=A9o will describe in > another mail. We have just realised that we have a problem: there's no > experimental range in the AE registry. > > I therefore propose to reserve the AE range 224-254 for experimental use > in the next revision of rfc6126bis. Any objections? Donald, is that oka= y > at this stage? > > Thanks, > > -- Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel > --000000000000bd71c005a0ac86fe Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That sounds like a very good change to me, I support makin= g it if the WG agrees.

David

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020= at 9:54 AM Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.= fr> wrote:
babel@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
--000000000000bd71c005a0ac86fe-- From nobody Thu Mar 12 11:59:31 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11573A0FC0 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:59:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk 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 tgSHuvKkmoe6 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2a0c:4d80:42:2001::664]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A2E43A1074 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1584039555; bh=t3DMUcy1mBpTvux8B5kcjYcMVh1TcN7nWQIuthdtKhc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=pTeDM7oEzevQEy/FXg6bYQvGov7KOknPbCU0UXQXj5MvrK+gmYDGSBj3WD2aQ6cK+ Dvc/47xf31MHS0vTRdjYhEeLyYKRkAd4RDsZsaspK+3PYjllas1qF7//1Qsez011SM 8KVhnESMHX31mwZwRHM9r05hIrYNameOJsNvWsgJxZw288Z/nRYi63VcrWPBTR9xY1 s7qFHUALnzgoad3lwnsbazEdo+Me7b+m7ruwjwRm6BdrcM+PSihCNv5w4hCI3iAVJM /0Ne8A8mjSejN1PZ3aoLwN/5dCrhJckWzv7qD70h1P6E9SoMqVXzaYQ+hU9T3sLigU J/knH9xKFi6JQ== To: David Schinazi , Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: Donald Eastlake , theophile.bastian@ens.fr, Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: References: <8736adzf78.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:59:13 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87k13po0vy.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] No experimental range in the AE registry X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 18:59:29 -0000 David Schinazi writes: > That sounds like a very good change to me, I support making it if the WG > agrees. No objections from me either :) -Toke From nobody Thu Mar 12 12:03:04 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28FFE3A1014 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:02:50 -0700 (PDT) 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_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kapsi.fi 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 iGq-iuZKoTJu for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:02:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.kapsi.fi (mail.kapsi.fi [IPv6:2001:67c:1be8::25]) (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 D4C043A10A8 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:02:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kapsi.fi; s=20161220; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date: In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=fVXEEdRHMDs78b3rJtMx3f3D4jFMPBALwGaPaZzjoKw=; b=YlRaCUTI5cHBsxD32U+bGZbHB0 ePuldeMnpJIMp2FWI7AHj6DozVpkx50OvocpA8gwVtDmf/o0smD6vdBOeagfo2o00BlOJ4Id9y9+k RoNFp3wzDSr1v7/PA5KseCTAWDxUoqdNJLTbTeHTKv93cygaR4Dw1zNv0dl29/wjSBOwSmbE+B42R Hsgw0eFBSmxApgD7KknDeySSRe3KtQaPEZCBvE2TuZBj/qynxB7ilL4u5QIyVR7MU9FSfx5RvJuCZ xvLWiikZe8SileNU89UyNCsjSXB936VCGi24yrwgPL/Vnuo4QI0cV/9i8LUXJSPNaucLKXq2TQaQi GhVGHYvA==; Received: from dgs33pyhp5lp24lvxgwgy-3.rev.dnainternet.fi ([2001:14ba:2bef:7600:ccca:596c:2633:2c8a]) by mail.kapsi.fi with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jCT6S-0006mE-V0; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 21:02:45 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) From: Markus Stenberg In-Reply-To: <8736adzf78.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 21:02:44 +0200 Cc: babel@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake , theophile.bastian@ens.fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <910042DE-5141-487D-9A04-6701E4F36296@iki.fi> References: <8736adzf78.wl-jch@irif.fr> To: Juliusz Chroboczek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:14ba:2bef:7600:ccca:596c:2633:2c8a X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: markus.stenberg@iki.fi X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.kapsi.fi); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] No experimental range in the AE registry X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:02:57 -0000 On 12 Mar 2020, at 18.54, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Th=C3=A9o (in copy of this mail) and myself are currently working on = an > exciting new extension to the protocol, which Th=C3=A9o will describe = in > another mail. We have just realised that we have a problem: there's = no > experimental range in the AE registry. >=20 > I therefore propose to reserve the AE range 224-254 for experimental = use > in the next revision of rfc6126bis. Any objections? Donald, is that = okay > at this stage? Sounds like a good idea to me; in general private use / experimental = ranges should be in pretty much any protocol to decrease likelihood of = prototyping conflicting later on with IANA assignments. -Markus= From nobody Thu Mar 12 12:18:03 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A883A0031 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:18:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 TktftcEtc9Up for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd42.google.com (mail-io1-xd42.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d42]) (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 84D843A0029 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd42.google.com with SMTP id q128so6873708iof.9 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:17:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s2N7E4E2ImpGUFlJerw2O5Irzo/oB7r8PP9QpiZ4eVQ=; b=KsmDJNBQfJd/dwahzp8twWptvxZ4RXNcLHzzmwMB93C4FunCHWOZFIXDHacLP9THoM hxnwO0I8A+IYfmOdvqB3nC3aVfKnglRe+cLs4dOu6WX/z9i1yWGmPf8x46K8XzqYlM80 eat+FGcJIruqYGABvCE7L9x7BpKp0RxU06O6mvVgCGTA0NCDzCS4K7EFdh15UAERqw6e Lmshju1fJ/YZzTbsMtYHzlSUdmc3QLA63bb0Vcq0//yA5B41TsydEVHj3kLKqn0B4jsT EjwCKu8/zLtnGp7VuJmA6ttCfQatlaTHYZ+xOu6N9s9pBLEOcjbI9sQZN7p3XNsd9MQL xugA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s2N7E4E2ImpGUFlJerw2O5Irzo/oB7r8PP9QpiZ4eVQ=; b=ESerWCZAUaIKCKYj/uSatDpgLERwb6mugzT/FD3TOCYDfAytYY5PAefc3dYrPjp8P/ wykRbH5RRk2U1lahGW6rSB3ntUbK12MahGsyyQKhi8EmodgGi4cynZTLxRmJH6hgts1W /RIeGn0G1s5Cgj0ufXi9Y0kcUNTbezDwtvxpbeeZAV13TGu25CllG5EVjB59XYn2jBGE F/6GPXe7PPBIA5I3RyFmXQ4aR3FnyhzxMW84vi4Qlf8F6CzWlAsFE90ugdJLjoYvzMw3 CJ7aNoElDj/x4TuJnB88FC1+XYAoKuEzdsANoXBDYtmSi0xFgjh4etJtWlxFb0Sy6dha 4yAA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3QBnzU9OArg/KlFzHhz+t6Fqq3vbIduKwSOObzlz8P2Xtye8gA SYJwTdlEZAXXDDTqJ2z+P1/EIHzWzKUgnVg4M+4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvWzv7UUW0fmWehpl/dMrgAAcDvs1sOYu7dh72dvUGj248Kkv3YvFkrdd+j3BMLykHrWBise6ybZ4aaSR3rsJo= X-Received: by 2002:a02:856a:: with SMTP id g97mr9089079jai.97.1584040678508; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:17:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8736adzf78.wl-jch@irif.fr> <910042DE-5141-487D-9A04-6701E4F36296@iki.fi> In-Reply-To: <910042DE-5141-487D-9A04-6701E4F36296@iki.fi> From: Dave Taht Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:17:47 -0700 Message-ID: To: Markus Stenberg Cc: Juliusz Chroboczek , Donald Eastlake , theophile.bastian@ens.fr, Babel at IETF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] No experimental range in the AE registry X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:18:02 -0000 no objections, except that I'm dying to learn about what this new extension is. :) but I also note, given the present rate of extension additions to babel, I think it would be over a hundred years before the various 8 bit spaces was exhausted, and it's easier to just grab a number with consent from the group and run with it. On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:03 PM Markus Stenberg w= rote: > > On 12 Mar 2020, at 18.54, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > Th=C3=A9o (in copy of this mail) and myself are currently working on an > > exciting new extension to the protocol, which Th=C3=A9o will describe i= n > > another mail. We have just realised that we have a problem: there's no > > experimental range in the AE registry. > > > > I therefore propose to reserve the AE range 224-254 for experimental us= e > > in the next revision of rfc6126bis. Any objections? Donald, is that o= kay > > at this stage? > > Sounds like a good idea to me; in general private use / experimental rang= es should be in pretty much any protocol to decrease likelihood of prototyp= ing conflicting later on with IANA assignments. > > -Markus > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel --=20 Make Music, Not War Dave T=C3=A4ht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-435-0729 From nobody Thu Mar 12 15:28:22 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC3F3A08BE for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:28:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 2BiSlGsqnTLg for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:28:19 -0700 (PDT) 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 383533A08BD for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:28:19 -0700 (PDT) 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/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id 02CMSELm021570 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:28:14 +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/relay2/82085) with ESMTP id 02CMSEfd011305; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:28:14 +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 9DBAFE7D8C; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:28:14 +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 SmkZlVWPyXoT; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:28:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7AD0E7D8A; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:28:10 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:28:10 +0100 Message-ID: <875zf9nr7p.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Dave Taht Cc: Markus Stenberg , Donald Eastlake , theophile.bastian@ens.fr, Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: References: <8736adzf78.wl-jch@irif.fr> <910042DE-5141-487D-9A04-6701E4F36296@iki.fi> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:28:14 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:28:14 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5E6AB77E.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5E6AB77E.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5E6AB77E.000 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5E6AB77E.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 : 5E6AB77E.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5E6AB77E.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: Subject: Re: [babel] No experimental range in the AE registry X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 22:28:21 -0000 > no objections, except that I'm dying to learn about what this new > extension is. :) Théophile is working on a write-up. Be patient :-) From nobody Fri Mar 13 01:08:56 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE133A134F for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 01:08:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ens.fr 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 LyKvNx8Litrm for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 01:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef2.ens.fr [129.199.96.40]) (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 E35243A134C for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 01:08:52 -0700 (PDT) X-ENS-nef-client: 129.199.1.22 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ens.fr; s=default; t=1584086930; bh=72yUYA0KDagh4gP9PAZATWCFH5Kwbc4PWmbqRlsU2hY=; h=To:From:Subject:Date:From; b=M3jdX0pJdRTBcoyvpFrbLpnl5ErcPkM5xKH9+gtViPmBAd7f7ajhfuNAKlA+1eYVE DZuGm3Nx/5+PtNqCEPnbdurMg9HiND0NQ2c4tPs/+7c+yrt7TxyqM2l6g0JaVMMTDp uFqlDVbOQSRXviQlbWilL3fry0Y46+ZhxT1oOQxs= Received: from clipper.ens.fr (clipper-gw.ens.fr [129.199.1.22]) by nef.ens.fr (8.14.4/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id 02D88oPj008109 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:08:50 +0100 Received: from [192.168.0.14] using smtps by clipper.ens.fr (8.14.4/jb-1.1) id 02D88opG074034 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:08:50 +0100 (authenticated user tbastian) X-ENS-Received: (91-160-99-187.subs.proxad.net [91.160.99.187]) X-Envelope-To: To: Babel at IETF From: =?UTF-8?Q?Th=c3=a9ophile_Bastian?= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:08:50 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:08:50 +0100 (CET) Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Babel v4-over-v6 extension X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 13 Mar 2020 08:08:55 -0000 Dear all, I am a new intern working with Juliusz on Babel. My goal at the moment is to implement v6-over-v4 routing in Babel, that is, using an IPv6 address as a next hop for an IPv4 packet. This would allow, for instance, a router without IPv4 address to be used as a next hop for an IPv4 packet, since this feature was recently introduced in the Linux kernel [1]. I have so far experimentally implemented this feature in a fork of babeld [here](https://github.com/tobast/babeld). This code is NOT production-ready, and needs to be mostly re-written. It does not reflect the exact changes we propose either yet. We have considered three options to design this extension: (i) One possibility, due to Toke, is to add a v4-over-v6 route whenever a router receives an UPDATE for a v4 prefix without a preceding v4 NH TLV. The next hop would then be the latest v6 NH TLV, if any, or the link-local address of the neighbour announcing the update otherwise — just as it would be done for a v6 UPDATE. * Another possibility is to introduce a new AE for v4-over-v6. This AE would behave in the same way as AE 1 (IPv4) in all contexts except NH — in which case it would behave as AE 2 (non-link-local IPv6). In this case, we have to consider the state of the protocol. When parsing an IPv4 address, if `omitted != 0`, we use a stored prefix from previous TLVs for compression. This prefix cannot be reused with this new AE to preserve backwards compatibility. Indeed, a v4-over-v6 TLV might change the v4 compression prefix. Yet, this TLV will be ignored by any older implementation of babel, thus breaking the protocol state. However, we see no such argument that would prevent us from reusing the AE 2 (IPv6) next-hop. We this have two options: (ii) either we use as a next-hop the address from the latest AE 2 NH TLV, if any, or the link-local address of the neighbour otherwise; (iii) or we use a distinct state to store NH TLVs for this new AE: we use as a next-hop the address from the latest NH TLV with this new AE, if any, or the link-local address of the neighbour otherwise. Here, backwards compatibility is especially important to take into account, since we are not only considering the case where a router is using an old version of Babel, but also the case in which the host system of a router does not support v6-over-v4 routes. So far, we are more inclined to choose option (iii). We prefer (ii/iii) over (i), because option (i) does not signal clearly in any way that an extension of the protocol is being used, and might confuse older versions. We also believe it is easier to understand, debug and trace, and comes at a price of only a small overhead wrt. (i). Between (ii) and (iii), Juliusz is in favour of (iii), since option (ii) mixes reuse and separate state in a weird way, and might be confusing. I do not have yet a clear opinion on this, but I am inclined to agree with him. Any opinion on this choice is appreciated! In the current experimental version, I implement this using AE 4, but I will change it very soon to AE 240 to ensure this experimental version does not break any future production implementation if this ID is fine for everyone — see the previous mail from Juliusz regarding this. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=d15662682db232da77136cd348f4c9df312ca6f9 Best regards, -- Théophile From nobody Fri Mar 13 11:32:36 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D7C3A088F for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:32:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 Rfln9jyJylQy for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (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 3285D3A088D for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:32:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id 19so11617318ljj.7 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:32:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=r3FbdJy8pYP6j2m/uyPYiJMayMG8LcL1hU4wY153xos=; b=e4E94bBBQQ9tmnGxtvVu+O9aWOc+OlwUxdwcY9unAlkTt+fZEGevvF7I6OaEEUnqm9 DTL8dezD2a2DnRHQg0NxQt2nKrvB8wS1CEiHvbtDqoRHJWFGzT2ImG0tCBv6UQ6Ao+1X Kb5fiw2l3pH+LEjxigd+aPUym6U3Cj4DC3mdQ0F6exaBGVyfxzDAQm0PTEPc88sIeFs6 LJiutZSrbteTFBTAop2ZIp2KKiij7dv6X0GqZ3JI+bcvzDgqMFPp7i7PqKvIu9DMG+Bg EOWfk+N6S0rz70FFobH7mdTcd2LNLY5NhwyuM7td6uhGFvM87VNfHctuBlQ09W/H57/7 riYA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r3FbdJy8pYP6j2m/uyPYiJMayMG8LcL1hU4wY153xos=; b=KyPZethLh09XMSqlr32t3RGV6hNnMeEtIwE+1z/FJ+GEWeJL/ivGYgS/zst73Hbf5r 5/fmlMtV3BNM3IE3ZVNBx1oRlMOViMF3Y+kOh8IUm34aDmW2KW0l8OwznKC/TgtaudYO /h1ndLsKiGBlHKazu+vHlovdj9l1gUDJYLlrmYF/7SolspedC3Xujh5xxNtbbv5AjBRp iXxxobcfn6B9j6xtlmgwk8ElFLgNqsgQf7zUD0pKFKWJTGkSE04zZObYwnc4x26b1M6L esu3Lgghf28sdhR2T/NFZa8jxTqqHsW9Wr1z/yrtNzOD1J++e6VbFtfLTPm/LBAEQjoW 2krA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3DsBqMSTvBpF3Gitw1N9Z0kDUfQhhOjjouFW41mZYHDTfnUscK 9VIt7A3WL/13c5DKNgwCYtoOO3VphyMb8G6P4vk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtNUGs019Knq3DgIwSqtsZtq+dcWyJHJhgRY4UUDvonx942e6cZctx7NSjJ6csOa2Q6Hj4n0A1Htv+pAAzcg4o= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a58c:: with SMTP id m12mr8222307ljp.141.1584124349014; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:32:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: David Schinazi Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:32:18 -0700 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Th=C3=A9ophile_Bastian?= Cc: Babel at IETF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001a65c905a0c0b154" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Babel v4-over-v6 extension X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 13 Mar 2020 18:32:35 -0000 --0000000000001a65c905a0c0b154 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nice work, and welcome to Babel, Th=C3=A9ophile! I think I also have a slight preference for (iii), as it's easier to reason about and to prove that it won't cause issues for nodes that don't support this feature. David On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 1:09 AM Th=C3=A9ophile Bastian wrote: > Dear all, > > I am a new intern working with Juliusz on Babel. > > My goal at the moment is to implement v6-over-v4 routing in Babel, that > is, using an IPv6 address as a next hop for an IPv4 packet. This > would allow, for instance, a router without IPv4 address to be used as > a next hop for an IPv4 packet, since this feature was recently > introduced in the Linux kernel [1]. > > I have so far experimentally implemented this feature in a fork of > babeld [here](https://github.com/tobast/babeld). This code is NOT > production-ready, and needs to be mostly re-written. It does not > reflect the exact changes we propose either yet. > > We have considered three options to design this extension: > > (i) One possibility, due to Toke, is to add a v4-over-v6 route whenever > a router receives an UPDATE for a v4 prefix without a preceding v4 NH > TLV. The next hop would then be the latest v6 NH TLV, if any, or the > link-local address of the neighbour announcing the update otherwise = =E2=80=94 > just as it would be done for a v6 UPDATE. > > * Another possibility is to introduce a new AE for v4-over-v6. This AE > would behave in the same way as AE 1 (IPv4) in all contexts except > NH =E2=80=94 in which case it would behave as AE 2 (non-link-local IPv= 6). > > In this case, we have to consider the state of the protocol. > > When parsing an IPv4 address, if `omitted !=3D 0`, we use a stored > prefix from previous TLVs for compression. This prefix cannot be > reused with this new AE to preserve backwards compatibility. Indeed, > a v4-over-v6 TLV might change the v4 compression prefix. Yet, this > TLV will be ignored by any older implementation of babel, thus > breaking the protocol state. > > However, we see no such argument that would prevent us from reusing > the AE 2 (IPv6) next-hop. We this have two options: > > (ii) either we use as a next-hop the address from the latest AE 2 NH > TLV, if any, or the link-local address of the neighbour > otherwise; > (iii) or we use a distinct state to store NH TLVs for this new AE: we > use as a next-hop the address from the latest NH TLV with this > new AE, if any, or the link-local address of the neighbour > otherwise. > > Here, backwards compatibility is especially important to take into > account, since we are not only considering the case where a router is > using an old version of Babel, but also the case in which the host > system of a router does not support v6-over-v4 routes. > > So far, we are more inclined to choose option (iii). > > We prefer (ii/iii) over (i), because option (i) does not signal clearly > in any way that an extension of the protocol is being used, and might > confuse older versions. We also believe it is easier to understand, > debug and trace, and comes at a price of only a small overhead wrt. > (i). > > Between (ii) and (iii), Juliusz is in favour of (iii), since option > (ii) mixes reuse and separate state in a weird way, and might be > confusing. I do not have yet a clear opinion on this, but I am inclined > to agree with him. > > Any opinion on this choice is appreciated! > > > In the current experimental version, I implement this using AE 4, but I > will change it very soon to AE 240 to ensure this experimental version > does not break any future production implementation if this ID is fine > for everyone =E2=80=94 see the previous mail from Juliusz regarding this. > > > [1] > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit= /?id=3Dd15662682db232da77136cd348f4c9df312ca6f9 > > Best regards, > -- Th=C3=A9ophile > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel > --0000000000001a65c905a0c0b154 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Nice work, and welcome to Babel, Th=C3=A9ophile!

<= /div>
I think I also have a slight preference for (iii), as it's
easier to reason about and to prove that it won't cause
issues for nodes that don't support this feature.

David

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 1:09 AM Th=C3=A9ophile Bastian &l= t;theophile.bastian@ens.fr&= gt; wrote:
Dear = all,

I am a new intern working with Juliusz on Babel.

My goal at the moment is to implement v6-over-v4 routing in Babel, that
is, using an IPv6 address as a next hop for an IPv4 packet. This
would allow, for instance, a router without IPv4 address to be used as
a next hop for an IPv4 packet, since this feature was recently
introduced in the Linux kernel [1].

I have so far experimentally implemented this feature in a fork of
babeld [here](https://github.com/tobast/babeld). This code is NO= T
production-ready, and needs to be mostly re-written. It does not
reflect the exact changes we propose either yet.

We have considered three options to design this extension:

(i) One possibility, due to Toke, is to add a v4-over-v6 route whenever
=C2=A0 =C2=A0a router receives an UPDATE for a v4 prefix without a precedin= g v4 NH
=C2=A0 =C2=A0TLV. The next hop would then be the latest v6 NH TLV, if any, = or the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0link-local address of the neighbour announcing the update othe= rwise =E2=80=94
=C2=A0 =C2=A0just as it would be done for a v6 UPDATE.

* Another possibility is to introduce a new AE for v4-over-v6. This AE
=C2=A0 =C2=A0would behave in the same way as AE 1 (IPv4) in all contexts ex= cept
=C2=A0 =C2=A0NH =E2=80=94 in which case it would behave as AE 2 (non-link-l= ocal IPv6).

=C2=A0 =C2=A0In this case, we have to consider the state of the protocol.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0When parsing an IPv4 address, if `omitted !=3D 0`, we use a st= ored
=C2=A0 =C2=A0prefix from previous TLVs for compression. This prefix cannot = be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0reused with this new AE to preserve backwards compatibility. I= ndeed,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0a v4-over-v6 TLV might change the v4 compression prefix. Yet, = this
=C2=A0 =C2=A0TLV will be ignored by any older implementation of babel, thus=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0breaking the protocol state.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0However, we see no such argument that would prevent us from re= using
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the AE 2 (IPv6) next-hop. We this have two options:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0(ii)=C2=A0 either we use as a next-hop the address from the la= test AE 2 NH
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0TLV, if any, or the link-local address of= the neighbour
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0otherwise;
=C2=A0 =C2=A0(iii) or we use a distinct state to store NH TLVs for this new= AE: we
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0use as a next-hop the address from the la= test NH TLV with this
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0new AE, if any, or the link-local address= of the neighbour
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0otherwise.

Here, backwards compatibility is especially important to take into
account, since we are not only considering the case where a router is
using an old version of Babel, but also the case in which the host
system of a router does not support v6-over-v4 routes.

So far, we are more inclined to choose option (iii).

We prefer (ii/iii) over (i), because option (i) does not signal clearly
in any way that an extension of the protocol is being used, and might
confuse older versions. We also believe it is easier to understand,
debug and trace, and comes at a price of only a small overhead wrt.
(i).

Between (ii) and (iii), Juliusz is in favour of (iii), since option
(ii) mixes reuse and separate state in a weird way, and might be
confusing. I do not have yet a clear opinion on this, but I am inclined
to agree with him.

Any opinion on this choice is appreciated!


In the current experimental version, I implement this using AE 4, but I
will change it very soon to AE 240 to ensure this experimental version
does not break any future production implementation if this ID is fine
for everyone =E2=80=94 see the previous mail from Juliusz regarding this.

[1]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvald= s/linux.git/commit/?id=3Dd15662682db232da77136cd348f4c9df312ca6f9

Best regards,
-- Th=C3=A9ophile

_______________________________________________
babel mailing list
babel@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
--0000000000001a65c905a0c0b154-- From nobody Fri Mar 13 21:08:30 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC503A0C7B for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:08:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.847 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 8Kbiu8P-sKqY for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (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 7BCAA3A0C7A for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id d15so11686794iog.3 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:08:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UvlYWiGs0DkvfLxNGnuRhfebKWpGw4XlSegTWLnfzd0=; b=ELWQsUBCuXFzoGWI2HVBD7PPUaqV0p64Gx/kvI6cuBHrLbR26JzqMh1lQsJvcTivOA Kl/91L2aKhnPBxOzlPTym63bhya/GL9eJJukK2bAeNCo3GscB8C5F3F2fF0bbG/YMs3d XOA86rMCer9R9MM7UGwJssNI3AN+P24E+O+pRX0UjBLJGWYmw+Yb2Wgt47KJGQwiEAWY 78eXCv8uzdgE78zuC8utF7Lu6dMrQqZhgUNMl/14DEO0Fa++wVVWzuxr9ZGNd2EYBT0D EsCEaYilTFIQXGoXR4o6WrDwLPI51A2ddiA0LTNGqzIiHl9MjG4HfnTyK4BHJY0n4XYv GugQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UvlYWiGs0DkvfLxNGnuRhfebKWpGw4XlSegTWLnfzd0=; b=aop8qy5cqCou2An0IczMAmVQ6+/vwZyVbZ8RSRKv5xShnAKpeGw6IOhYSHdQlnHlVk ApuKRe3zJIvcKFaOgTcLJeU3SN7245dwRegV+WxMxtSUSZDjsRK855BJglrUzcbmFv+7 RFzemFcserG2fi2y11diCF6+IyjsYHh46lcZIepxtAOb1EYgHzhD4WHVmSWBYDmxsqCV nm6czwosA8sEkiqStrs1R2ssOzpou4DVpWI1bD+RPmXXafWTx6LVOE0YkFo7/SuCYTEO v5y6HJ+EIFjNxP/Qgkssahigea6kGe9MYY7bPYD6p6ZLqHHFcuBKfNAFY3rG6YZrdGW7 lAJA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2IL6G3vxL2a+KjSWLzsPhS1c9wzIMXge/f8FRmYfGY+kLbOH8P PDoJSYzBYU59blZ3MH+2x8fIch478uY9or1mJys= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsu1t5J6iHk/zGHUj1V24Bx+R67SxPcd+Gm7r8nXa7VxGUZEYh7wbp/forU+OsWNMZo9Eq8fN/Mt4oHFy67x9o= X-Received: by 2002:a02:cd10:: with SMTP id g16mr16572905jaq.48.1584158905467; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:08:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8736adzf78.wl-jch@irif.fr> <910042DE-5141-487D-9A04-6701E4F36296@iki.fi> In-Reply-To: From: Donald Eastlake Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 00:08:14 -0400 Message-ID: To: Dave Taht Cc: Markus Stenberg , Juliusz Chroboczek , theophile.bastian@ens.fr, Babel at IETF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d408b105a0c8bc79" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] No experimental range in the AE registry X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 04:08:29 -0000 --000000000000d408b105a0c8bc79 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, It's a bit of problem to change the rfc6126bis draft at this point except to resolve IESG requests or to fix typos or the like... We could have use the early allocation procedures in RFC 7120 to allocate AE codepoints except that rfc6126bis does not set up an IANA registry to those codepoints. I assume this is in connection with IPv4 over IPv6. The best thing to do it seems to me would be to have the draft which adds that also set up the IANA registry and assign the new AE value, assuming one is needed. So, the IANA Consideration section of the new draft would include something like the following: IANA is requested to create a new registry on the IANA "Babel Routing Protocol" web page as follows: Registry Name: Babel AE Values Registration Procedure: Expert Review References: [draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis] [this document] AE Value Address Type Reference -------- -------------- ----------------------------- 0 Wildcard [draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis] 1 IPv4 [draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis] 2 IPv6 [draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis] 3 IPv6 link local [draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis] 4 IPv4 over IPv6 [this document] 5-255 unassigned [this document] Thanks, Donald =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com Thanks, Donald =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:17 PM Dave Taht wrote: > no objections, except that I'm dying to learn about what this new > extension is. :) > > but I also note, given the present rate of extension additions to > babel, I think it would be over a > hundred years before the various 8 bit spaces was exhausted, and it's > easier to just grab a number with consent from the group and run with > it. > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:03 PM Markus Stenberg > wrote: > > > > On 12 Mar 2020, at 18.54, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > > Th=C3=A9o (in copy of this mail) and myself are currently working on = an > > > exciting new extension to the protocol, which Th=C3=A9o will describe= in > > > another mail. We have just realised that we have a problem: there's = no > > > experimental range in the AE registry. > > > > > > I therefore propose to reserve the AE range 224-254 for experimental > use > > > in the next revision of rfc6126bis. Any objections? Donald, is that > okay > > > at this stage? > > > > Sounds like a good idea to me; in general private use / experimental > ranges should be in pretty much any protocol to decrease likelihood of > prototyping conflicting later on with IANA assignments. > > > > -Markus > > _______________________________________________ > > babel mailing list > > babel@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel > > > > -- > Make Music, Not War > > Dave T=C3=A4ht > CTO, TekLibre, LLC > http://www.teklibre.com > Tel: 1-831-435-0729 > --000000000000d408b105a0c8bc79 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

It's a bit of problem to change the rfc6126= bis draft at this point except to resolve IESG requests or to fix typos or = the like...

We could=C2=A0 have use the early allocation procedures = in RFC 7120 to allocate AE codepoints except that rfc6126bis does not set u= p an IANA registry to those codepoints.

I assume this is= in connection with IPv4 over IPv6. The best thing to do it seems to me wou= ld be to have the draft which adds that also set up the IANA registry and a= ssign the new AE value, assuming one is needed. So, the IANA Consideration = section of the new draft would include something like the following:
<= div>
IANA is requested to create a new registry= on the IANA "Babel Routing Protocol" web page as follows:=

Reg= istry Name: Babel AE Values
Reg= istration Procedure: Expert Review
References: [draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis] [this document]
<= /blockquote>

AE Value=C2=A0 Address Type=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Reference
=
--------=C2=A0 --------------=C2=A0 =C2=A0 = -----------------------------
= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Wildcard=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0[draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis]
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 1=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 IPv4=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis]
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 2=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 IPv6=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis]
=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 3=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 IPv6 link= local=C2=A0 [draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis]
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 4=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 IPv4 over IPv6=C2=A0 =C2=A0= [this document]
=C2=A0 =C2=A05-= 255=C2=A0 =C2=A0unassigned=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[this document]=

Thanks,
Donald
= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=C2=A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd =C2=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (= cell)
=C2=A02386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
=C2=A0d3e3e3@gmail.com

Thanks,
Donald
= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=C2=A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd =C2=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (= cell)
=C2=A02386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
=C2=A0d3e3e3@gmail.com


On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:17 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
no objections, except that I'm dying t= o learn about what this new
extension is. :)

but I also note, given the present rate of extension additions to
babel, I think it would be over a
hundred years before the various 8 bit spaces was exhausted, and it's easier to just grab a number with consent from the group and run with
it.

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:03 PM Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi> wrote:=
>
> On 12 Mar 2020, at 18.54, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:
> > Th=C3=A9o (in copy of this mail) and myself are currently working= on an
> > exciting new extension to the protocol, which Th=C3=A9o will desc= ribe in
> > another mail.=C2=A0 We have just realised that we have a problem:= there's no
> > experimental range in the AE registry.
> >
> > I therefore propose to reserve the AE range 224-254 for experimen= tal use
> > in the next revision of rfc6126bis.=C2=A0 Any objections?=C2=A0 D= onald, is that okay
> > at this stage?
>
> Sounds like a good idea to me; in general private use / experimental r= anges should be in pretty much any protocol to decrease likelihood of proto= typing conflicting later on with IANA assignments.
>
> -Markus
> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> babel@ietf.org=
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel



--
Make Music, Not War

Dave T=C3=A4ht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
ht= tp://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-435-0729
--000000000000d408b105a0c8bc79-- From nobody Sat Mar 14 06:38:33 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F6003A151D for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 06:38:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 8g7CrZft-pGQ for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 06:38:30 -0700 (PDT) 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 774FB3A151C for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 06:38:29 -0700 (PDT) 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/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id 02EDcPFF024709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:25 +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/relay2/82085) with ESMTP id 02EDcPE9002340; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:25 +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 7D06D103899; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:25 +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 PSa7YFeoE44k; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AEAEB103894; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:23 +0100 Message-ID: <87tv2rdpkg.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Donald Eastlake Cc: theophile.bastian@ens.fr, Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: References: <8736adzf78.wl-jch@irif.fr> <910042DE-5141-487D-9A04-6701E4F36296@iki.fi> 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]); Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:25 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Sat, 14 Mar 2020 14:38:25 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5E6CDE51.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5E6CDE51.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5E6CDE51.001 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5E6CDE51.000 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 : 5E6CDE51.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5E6CDE51.000 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: Subject: Re: [babel] No experimental range in the AE registry X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 13:38:33 -0000 Hi Donald, > We could have use the early allocation procedures in RFC 7120 to allocate AE > codepoints except that rfc6126bis does not set up an IANA registry to those > codepoints. Yes it does. Please see Section 5 of rfc6126bis: IANA is instructed to create a registry called "Babel Address Encodings". The allocation policy for this registry is Specification Required. The values in this registry are as follows: +----+-------------------------+---------------+ | AE | Name | Reference | +----+-------------------------+---------------+ | 0 | Wildcard address | this document | | | | | | 1 | IPv4 address | this document | | | | | | 2 | IPv6 address | this document | | | | | | 3 | Link-local IPv6 address | this document | +----+-------------------------+---------------+ What we're suggesting is to add the following entries to that table: 4-223 -- Unassigned 224-254 -- Reserved for Experimental Use 255 -- Unassigned What I'm asking is -- should we do it now, in the next revision of the draft, or should we merely establish WG consensus now, with a view to amending the IANA registry after the RFC is published. -- Juliusz From nobody Sat Mar 14 09:46:23 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7E5C3A07D8 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 09:46:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 iAVq9Iq5KCiK for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 09:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd33.google.com (mail-io1-xd33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d33]) (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 DFBB63A07B6 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 09:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd33.google.com with SMTP id w9so12744344iob.12 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 09:46:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sAibxHNyJ1xo8DQbnW2p48j7wrGPpfkBpFto36N/FUE=; b=c0IwwJvXBV/B8Y7HR8TH6eDiiSt4/MYcFABI/bcMAG+0buYypCy3TpDDkZ4pSpAZRB J2me2TCHtwvkerF7gFfD0+Wwse/p19b3ZpIW4FjJv21Ktk0yMBpKFunT9J/X56LyASf/ hUjT1GRwmn11X5p4jY0EK0tpGezQWvHaawD1XetAnAh7Lr8IJARGRFRCDY99cTwYFz4Y DJksmhGiYvyx2s7P7BsOnztM9p9mM7M2bmLt85nKCJ2afHWicssCxf7SfscQtUMAnpFA kt986mBzVB+fNlJEdg+BCDDCmeGalbO7e8eFKBBLW4XKSamajx+S/MwHPUVDc8kybUg9 0QBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sAibxHNyJ1xo8DQbnW2p48j7wrGPpfkBpFto36N/FUE=; b=QZBuULJ1YEnTg90dDQ+NYUQM3SAKqXeuvANWekUf/wdRUi0ieP+7PZe6JlGcsPsBrw IqvfoWTXgo4GCEfnkifcrwkPCnRYDAqKVYxuxLs8TStWgCb8LVuPcJVfphm2SW+qd/4W WfTsrSPqP/FYVaSk8PEZVSfwnlCe4c1TZgFiW7VERIFNdqq5v8Zx1Ffnms7s7XjcX2xM iUGJbB07hRPIdYXIeTYdQ1OFemsYx+TTEOEVdxw1Ifg/rRVI6L7ap/ZopVZi8HpkIMec OFoxcdPc15CzBPooanP44FF0lai0ME0Xblc5kUChF33rg5+B/T56HFqgfby3k725ECkK OyBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ26ujbjnCBlylJ8NkJT9YvmN2vbLgvN7jfkKIsXLQ9Y/+A7V/0Z gm8/j2XQkDH6C/Ln8SZ+z4Ts4ReKRAwiHpCo3qs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsLxeqhNrxbNKb7GUH3Vx8AHkESRZWD+r7SCNo0cZf45lTAJzOADTpkWae912huAp+NE8riradQtdxfg0Jsfgc= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:f205:: with SMTP id q5mr17042099ioh.167.1584204369875; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 09:46:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8736adzf78.wl-jch@irif.fr> <910042DE-5141-487D-9A04-6701E4F36296@iki.fi> <87tv2rdpkg.wl-jch@irif.fr> In-Reply-To: <87tv2rdpkg.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 12:45:58 -0400 Message-ID: To: Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: theophile.bastian@ens.fr, Babel at IETF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] No experimental range in the AE registry X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 16:46:21 -0000 Hi Juliusz, On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 9:38 AM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > Hi Donald, > > > We could have use the early allocation procedures in RFC 7120 to allocate AE > > codepoints except that rfc6126bis does not set up an IANA registry to those > > codepoints. > > Yes it does. Please see Section 5 of rfc6126bis: > > IANA is instructed to create a registry called "Babel Address > Encodings". The allocation policy for this registry is Specification > Required. The values in this registry are as follows: > > +----+-------------------------+---------------+ > | AE | Name | Reference | > +----+-------------------------+---------------+ > | 0 | Wildcard address | this document | > | | | | > | 1 | IPv4 address | this document | > | | | | > | 2 | IPv6 address | this document | > | | | | > | 3 | Link-local IPv6 address | this document | > +----+-------------------------+---------------+ Sorry, I was confused. The rfc6126bis draft takes effect on being move to the RFC Editor by the managing AD, Martin Vigoureux in this case, which certifies that it has been approved by the IESG. At that point, the AE registry would be added to the IANA Babel web page. > What we're suggesting is to add the following entries to that table: > > 4-223 -- Unassigned > 224-254 -- Reserved for Experimental Use > 255 -- Unassigned So, looking t the proposed AE registry in rfc6126bis, I'm surprised it got through without some reviewer at some level (I missed this also) complaining that it has no explicit "reserved" value (should probably be 255) and didn't have a "4-255 unassigned" line although adding such an unassigned line is the sort of thing commonly done by IANA and the RFC Editor after draft approval as it is implied by the draft anyway. > What I'm asking is -- should we do it now, in the next revision of the > draft, or should we merely establish WG consensus now, with a view to > amending the IANA registry after the RFC is published. I think that as this point we should not make changes in rfc6126bis that are not needed to get it through the IESG. Just put the revised registry in the Babel IPv4 over IPv6 draft and for now just use AE=4 if an AE value is needed Note that, since the AE value assignment criteria is Specification Required, if rfc6126bis were through the IESG and the IANA Babel AE registry existed, then as soon as there was a complete Babel IPv4 over IPv6 draft, even a personal draft before WG adoption, an AE value could be assigned based on that IPv4 over IPv6 draft as the specification. (There is a slight complication that an expert determination that the specification is adequate for interoperability is needed for Specification Required which might cause a little delay.) > -- Juliusz Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 33896 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com From nobody Mon Mar 30 21:45:25 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88113A1AC2; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:45:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.051 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.051 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 fAw7wgn0IAbM; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:45:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x12c.google.com (mail-il1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12c]) (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 534133A1AC3; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:45:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id f16so18159078ilj.9; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:45:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=F4AiwqNc/7Ugn5zz0lYoE7AJVSO+58XZOipLPVqXwGg=; b=pOrO+Vvr9B+XMGvpmCU+SH3IodsYFXkWFL34KExNRmEtRaUkW8FbhAKib8XDyPccL1 kxCmYRelQ1Hw3PR0P17XgmIpYrERl7hxhJD5hCmRBkNz07/+x8mv1mo99K7YkyxwFpuZ qe+ME5IRBB0oM2U+eH0JFa/ZPwGE2kmw1K7EfGXfXsZ4Vn4iR0FT32GS2Qe8sPH6hY9J Ks5McU2dwVpEsqr/ksYYw+0GHn5EacXLWBPzfwGPPFnqQca6F0I3Z6M+AdFGbROAPnTw am0Ay/u6/tCBUcSI0x+OL+7qCinqyE3f2Ye+wyD9p9cRSasVCCf9/vRQ7wBELerrwLV8 MXlg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=F4AiwqNc/7Ugn5zz0lYoE7AJVSO+58XZOipLPVqXwGg=; b=Ppw3mvr8aAjy3Y2OS9oPhBEzJlOKbrS20Di/076y4eGofoApHje5BIbjsNQMscU+bh 0yTCF0EKiSJB3cvkdCXfbDwF+GYlKfuzTEvIlCXFKMEUYI/QmN2Cxj8wD74HhqitijA/ V0Vm2cMXAbGu01ZWw1hstGCx/fAhhcNEKDdXWgaoCmW0MNFbJxLOI63z1yQQqgaN0U55 brtbfDdZxlH6mFML4YiDnh0EboVCQoAW3fV/NZCskljlM4qF0nJwHy0m70cfo7kYGty2 4SHXVVoHHVj1mi2LiY8PCHjjHxA4OHBqlulfZTHzIhma+JoHPtF5EQuw/8Q6fWt1jScH MCmw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1hJh+CBjaijsR9zD8CHc4yy8UqajII+BrnVwAjFnJ4ZtzFSsN6 vV7EN5KqOwCXbyNJzK3efTzlrqG0jzAbw1pDJMXQVg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsHtfnCtCjraIvo6ZMtxXrYsnINNfIrv2epJN7oSFw835kAiooNjeFevUJYBM4wmU1PnfohQ3ttmrsiX1eSMVc= X-Received: by 2002:a92:ce91:: with SMTP id r17mr14502171ilo.199.1585629921310; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:45:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <878sk8gt6e.wl-jch@irif.fr> In-Reply-To: From: Donald Eastlake Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 00:45:10 -0400 Message-ID: To: Babel at IETF Cc: babel-chairs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Scheduling a BABEL WG interim meeting X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 31 Mar 2020 04:45:24 -0000 Hi, Due to the cancelation of the Vancouver IETF face-to-face meeting, default slots were scheduled for virtual meetings in April. Since Babel had been scheduled for fairly early in the IETF meeting week, there was a default slot for Babel in early April - but nothing will happen unless we take action to schedule a meeting. My thought is that May is a more realistic target. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com From nobody Tue Mar 31 10:42:05 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0A6F3A25B6 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:41:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 2za2dSkCa5_p for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:41:47 -0700 (PDT) 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 6DD8D3A25B9 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:41:47 -0700 (PDT) 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/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id 02VHfhwu017412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:41:43 +0200 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/relay2/82085) with ESMTP id 02VHfhkw020719; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:41:43 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46EB3C47D3; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:41:43 +0200 (CEST) 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 LHrkeN9o5TA2; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:41:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92D6CC47D0; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:41:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:41:41 +0200 Message-ID: <87o8scpgkq.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: babel@ietf.org, babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org CC: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Th=E9ophile?= Bastian User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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, 31 Mar 2020 19:41:43 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:41:43 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5E8380D7.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5E8380D7.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5E8380D7.000 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5E8380D7.000 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 : 5E8380D7.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5E8380D7.000 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: Subject: [babel] IPv4 over IPv6 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 31 Mar 2020 17:41:50 -0000 Dear all, Some of you might remember that Théo Bastian (in copy of this mail) is working on implementing a Babel extension for IPv4 routing with IPv6 next hops. Since the extension is meant to interoperate with other Babel routers, we've decided to encode IPv4-over-IPv6 routes as a new AE. So an IPv4-over-IPv6 route announcement consists of: 1. a normal Router-ID TLV ; 2. an IPv4-over-IPv6 Next Hop TLV carrying an IPv6 next-hop ; 3. an IPv4-over-IPv6 Update TLV carrying an IPv4 prefix. The Update is encoded in the new AE, which updates a separate set of compression state; the normal IPv4 compression state is left undisturbed. On the other hand, we have two natural ways of encoding the NH : (1) use a new NH, in the new AE ; (2) reuse the IPv6 NH (AEs 1 and 2). Encoding (1) has the advantage of being easier to explain. Encoding (2) has a number of advantages: (i) if a packet carries both IPv4 and IPv6 routes, the next-hop is only encoded once; (ii) we can use both AEs 1 and 2, which means that we can use the more compact encoding for link-local next-hops ; (iii) the code is slightly simpler. Initially, Théo preferred encoding (2), while I was in favour of (1). Théo rewrote all of his code in style (1), and after looking at his code, I'm having second thoughts. Does anyone have any good arguments one way or the other? Scratch this -- does anyone have any arguments, not necessarily good? -- Juliusz From nobody Tue Mar 31 11:19:03 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DFEA3A264B for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:19:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 4nhg-QoHc6Yy for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:18:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x12e.google.com (mail-il1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) (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 2689A3A2648 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:18:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id n13so13082658ilm.5 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:18:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FDEdy8ISfq2FGXWKqT6ljwxvYm9RmwzD838Xx3hjxZI=; b=c6NogYIBQqtCwUAyv7xnOTPPJ/Q90XkE9jJJaUneydJcXq2l3lHpWOOIHR2+yVitDf MnQof1HbjahLIPzr/JjlT7yhgLe7kXkeX50dWC1+3wMNBBtloUHLWRRVffI36rPnC1g/ 7X3urYqUlmz/KJ+0edXSJCy60HmcC25bhqFyqvpqBEQ4YrYsaR/ngQ15obWgjZ12kxKE 4tb+s8JnPrkGwF4JotyDdnGE8ey0DFqfgBjmfWqnU8aEEdAiQIypdZjyFt2JG6lWnv31 lXT7u42h0CWMWhwka4PwcsfLDafpIkx1CLGq+mHAFDQ70l/+5RBGj9gWb6HfvVNkzxTL A8MA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FDEdy8ISfq2FGXWKqT6ljwxvYm9RmwzD838Xx3hjxZI=; b=jLzyHHj4smfiTVzWZrazrTFms5dkwNo8pXjoZzpnJRBN/qcIg/NcY1OMWXDckarPRP JvbOHeHWGub/dFEzormHVRjJTGcwBigW1B5RyM3JapTQlFkRSAHZVvJIZe/xLpkU9bbB bjXUFtnulvILtAP7+pHN3piuK3egsWJmqOLECnr/8jPI3jUOIr+cPh4jE7O+fSktexL/ TlFhbeptPjEGfiaoHHTk8ht6syIWYyY45U7MPuROYOc/1bw+J7sLVrH0WcQrYzYPxjQI /GQym9vUraB97kYO7mAtUihwMUjHGIl7MuvRtNSlFTT/r6n5BUZumtZxPJHCTwYdBb1L Hieg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3i0FiDnFSNl/KMTFFFiGzLUnqXXux89Gg1myqfFsMhkiUBjwK5 VAw+7/GlefX6H30vaw8Zy7bz2LEJ9ozfbdw6sxR+J1dj X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuIkkuZWfIBXJtFsFw4hDMKSlON2MGzxUOoDaXGYNHJ1K/mSGUvqQfstTPPK/w4TKbs4HV9oNMrJB3LewgHt4w= X-Received: by 2002:a92:8e50:: with SMTP id k16mr18634620ilh.45.1585678736412; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:18:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87o8scpgkq.wl-jch@irif.fr> In-Reply-To: <87o8scpgkq.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Dave Taht Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:18:45 -0700 Message-ID: To: Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: Babel at IETF , babel-users Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] [Babel-users] IPv4 over IPv6 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 31 Mar 2020 18:19:01 -0000 I generally prefer denser encodings. does the bird implementation do any extensive ae? On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:41 AM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > Dear all, > > Some of you might remember that Th=C3=A9o Bastian (in copy of this mail) = is > working on implementing a Babel extension for IPv4 routing with IPv6 next > hops. Since the extension is meant to interoperate with other Babel > routers, we've decided to encode IPv4-over-IPv6 routes as a new AE. So a= n > IPv4-over-IPv6 route announcement consists of: > > 1. a normal Router-ID TLV ; > 2. an IPv4-over-IPv6 Next Hop TLV carrying an IPv6 next-hop ; > 3. an IPv4-over-IPv6 Update TLV carrying an IPv4 prefix. > > The Update is encoded in the new AE, which updates a separate set of > compression state; the normal IPv4 compression state is left undisturbed. > On the other hand, we have two natural ways of encoding the NH : > > (1) use a new NH, in the new AE ; > (2) reuse the IPv6 NH (AEs 1 and 2). > > Encoding (1) has the advantage of being easier to explain. Encoding (2) > has a number of advantages: > > (i) if a packet carries both IPv4 and IPv6 routes, the next-hop is onl= y > encoded once; > > (ii) we can use both AEs 1 and 2, which means that we can use the more > compact encoding for link-local next-hops ; > > (iii) the code is slightly simpler. > > Initially, Th=C3=A9o preferred encoding (2), while I was in favour of (1)= . > Th=C3=A9o rewrote all of his code in style (1), and after looking at his = code, > I'm having second thoughts. > > Does anyone have any good arguments one way or the other? Scratch this -= - > does anyone have any arguments, not necessarily good? > > -- Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > Babel-users mailing list > Babel-users@alioth-lists.debian.net > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users --=20 Make Music, Not War Dave T=C3=A4ht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-435-0729 From nobody Tue Mar 31 12:25:08 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149C63A29FE for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:25:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk 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 KUBNvK0qq68d for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2a0c:4d80:42:2001::664]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB36D3A29E8 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:24:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1585682693; bh=UAmSyY8l4E2aQIANWaT+HK/Z5/T/zMXJGZNZii6laCQ=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=FS84OMgZpzMFsduJ7NtSWqYN1vCU4AhQd9Ghp/HLcept2bNno6xh4gSzH+7Innen6 aAsNKHJCt0f5rm7uNumdjAPFSA/+zpp9IoaD7wTqaq7vlCgOltQSCE9Gqq9CULTHS6 VpPkNlYM3OunZvKC9xX7F842FeARULYpd0K6YWDYh+eE19H9FFrvWtlZKfi+lRbLry TMeOVr7W8/8KmPPXre4NzEn754MdhF0AdMlbJR/IoUAWosIR2P17TmTAWtveVlMb3L v3Xv9rEmdlPduVOdWYwdu6iLE6qpgcr/2c4ZCG69dbJWL9GDFCSFJRPLjFLFcVbfiC 6x+zXbOiDLKrg== To: Juliusz Chroboczek , babel@ietf.org, babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org In-Reply-To: <87o8scpgkq.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87o8scpgkq.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:24:50 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <877dz0iayl.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] [Babel-users] IPv4 over IPv6 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 31 Mar 2020 19:25:07 -0000 Juliusz Chroboczek writes: > Dear all, > > Some of you might remember that Th=C3=A9o Bastian (in copy of this mail) = is > working on implementing a Babel extension for IPv4 routing with IPv6 next > hops. Since the extension is meant to interoperate with other Babel > routers, we've decided to encode IPv4-over-IPv6 routes as a new AE. So an > IPv4-over-IPv6 route announcement consists of: > > 1. a normal Router-ID TLV ; > 2. an IPv4-over-IPv6 Next Hop TLV carrying an IPv6 next-hop ; > 3. an IPv4-over-IPv6 Update TLV carrying an IPv4 prefix. > > The Update is encoded in the new AE, which updates a separate set of > compression state; the normal IPv4 compression state is left undisturbed. > On the other hand, we have two natural ways of encoding the NH : > > (1) use a new NH, in the new AE ; > (2) reuse the IPv6 NH (AEs 1 and 2). > > Encoding (1) has the advantage of being easier to explain. Encoding (2) > has a number of advantages: > > (i) if a packet carries both IPv4 and IPv6 routes, the next-hop is only > encoded once; >=20=20=20 > (ii) we can use both AEs 1 and 2, which means that we can use the more > compact encoding for link-local next-hops ; > > (iii) the code is slightly simpler. > > Initially, Th=C3=A9o preferred encoding (2), while I was in favour of (1). > Th=C3=A9o rewrote all of his code in style (1), and after looking at his = code, > I'm having second thoughts. > > Does anyone have any good arguments one way or the other? Scratch this -- > does anyone have any arguments, not necessarily good? I think I would lean towards (2). As you say, it's more compact, but also, I think it makes sense conceptually: A v4-over-v6 *route* is certainly something new, but a *next hop* itself is not v4-over-v6, it's just a v6 address; so why would it need its own AE? -Toke From nobody Tue Mar 31 12:25:27 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C73F3A2A2F for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:25:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk 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 PGulcRgJzyoC for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:25:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2a0c:4d80:42:2001::664]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6510B3A2A21 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:25:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1585682718; bh=jMu9qQiYtPSDlVhGEMxOCiVxbkykgyRQbgzW+Xl6xaE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=cHfnHRI9GLDXFqj9uw6GqJvxf3hnAcRSlz6+f/CAW7Mitc3IWXEbFlSpoNR7M3KLF EmPcF2yJ1SAmtUgr0Spyxlv/LiDGpkOeX5qN0IuNWyb9kiSUSSJ0znw/uNDbApAMZo tBATKs0JaV1mwz0uObkUsW1qzGfuapHJabS7jwBKyZh1gHw2MzZc9hhfz3C6Sajp7y CUksxJq+xyI4OrGeqemsIthIolaDZpG8GTwvyJovpCmVX3VecMav8d+5E7uPFyUNSO UuHiwVYrYl5FhxWfR2MkYAqwltknjhLDe+Ob2KGccRxIflUjNLv2TvKnr9NzoKqRl5 LFkO4evTSIxvA== To: Dave Taht , Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: babel-users , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: References: <87o8scpgkq.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:25:08 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <874ku4iay3.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] [Babel-users] IPv4 over IPv6 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 31 Mar 2020 19:25:26 -0000 Dave Taht writes: > I generally prefer denser encodings. > > does the bird implementation do any extensive ae? Eh? Does the Bird implementation do what? -Toke From nobody Tue Mar 31 13:37:23 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B3B3A07BC for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:37:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 AOLO3rQbte0r for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (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 BF14E3A07BB for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id t17so23501956ljc.12 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:37:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=04cAXLutZI/bEH7HQusKFCfaLU9aEW17DQn/cV1SzMc=; b=XVA88dwUkRRIIccRQOstaOEwKiEG/jFMvjzUCPWp+f95tY0kmeQ7I59ZFWXYmbTJGM FDEGblNSWm1jHqZjI4B6xTmjzI9imJQ6YO34wJfhLzXXlra9NQUL2DrL2O1jDd4b9q+n huLWYdl5esOQliVD8p5CLKdkulHJxUXdpEgYROL+QLMbwQ+aovrfBvM0pzChGSjkVElE VFVbqGfUFIdZekbL9dWG+YjFcDaL7TDUnwizXCaUIE+brI9HXBoEwGA9yXEx+MNULTnd gG5B8EvUyZiCJhJeKU8qVn7WnSA3+U2c5wRpxDaYmwEmGiloWOQiyf+PgzSW5N0oqxav otpw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=04cAXLutZI/bEH7HQusKFCfaLU9aEW17DQn/cV1SzMc=; b=HLbxkE4emYCAKlEcXwKBkLlN68Xyk2tjAJYma6RW1sEJNLBdKUHljiMvYjr0k4PioH KjOtfaehMH35AzPU+X2akguZC8GEWDorqMftSEfjfpLUwXb5FcWIgLBpQAEfmTl1aQtb EuPM0eHTElyfXiymJPdMBPB5xLn2h4mNcnHwljk0yTPjQ1vHnxlc+m/iGF5wlk2BtSNL +sy96sT20bsJPp3qQ9jR7xSbxkVSMVlDUGi/24hdkztkZAfQHU5LcQYzIXA/8FvDV+dp lluSJOTnxEO7Yp9pD3ci1rikIq35iZB0/qcvXzOQleoNllN/iqJwUatEmxNKv4ZJCvEt gaMg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Puab2gkh9nauxCgEi6DebXgiYO99RWj8ki9gwb8mIVKXfEgHY6rc Ru5asznslDpfkzt6IBgHa1IBKH5vPCrDtWcYIos= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLXWEO6VistMxwbQV5qIMPzsx3q7zWZdHpYKjrYIZf0HLK2BMP4rSXSkkoOqo8icGhBftCsdz5RAahNh1wvUE0= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8958:: with SMTP id b24mr6205482ljk.211.1585687027764; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:37:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87o8scpgkq.wl-jch@irif.fr> <874ku4iay3.fsf@toke.dk> In-Reply-To: <874ku4iay3.fsf@toke.dk> From: David Schinazi Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:36:56 -0700 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Cc: Dave Taht , Juliusz Chroboczek , babel-users , Babel at IETF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000003d2dc05a22c8879" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] [Babel-users] IPv4 over IPv6 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 31 Mar 2020 20:37:22 -0000 --00000000000003d2dc05a22c8879 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I personally value simplicity/correctness over efficiency, but in this case the semantics of nextHop are straightforward so I see the risk of confusion as very low, so I'm in favor of the more compact encoding. Not a strong opinion though. David On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:25 PM Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: > Dave Taht writes: > > > I generally prefer denser encodings. > > > > does the bird implementation do any extensive ae? > > Eh? Does the Bird implementation do what? > > -Toke > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel > --00000000000003d2dc05a22c8879 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I personally value simplicity/correctness over efficiency,=
but in this case the semantics of nextHop are straightforward
so I see the risk of confusion as very low, so I'm in favor of
<= div>the more compact encoding. Not a strong opinion though.

<= /div>
David

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:25 PM Toke H=C3=B8iland-J= =C3=B8rgensen <toke=3D40toke= .dk@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> writes:

> I generally prefer denser encodings.
>
> does the bird implementation do any extensive ae?

Eh? Does the Bird implementation do what?

-Toke

_______________________________________________
babel mailing list
babel@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
--00000000000003d2dc05a22c8879--