Delay-based Metric Extension for the Babel Routing Protocol
draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (babel WG)
Last updated 2019-08-03 (latest revision 2019-04-26)
Replaces draft-jonglez-babel-rtt-extension
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Experimental
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd Donald Eastlake
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Network Working Group                                         B. Jonglez
Internet-Draft                                                  ENS Lyon
Updates: 6126 (if approved)                                J. Chroboczek
Intended status: Experimental          IRIF, University of Paris-Diderot
Expires: October 28, 2019                                 April 26, 2019

      Delay-based Metric Extension for the Babel Routing Protocol
                   draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-00

Abstract

   This document defines an extension to the Babel routing protocol that
   uses symmetric delay in metric computation and therefore makes it
   possible to prefer lower latency links to higher latency ones.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 28, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Jonglez & Chroboczek    Expires October 28, 2019                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             Babel RTT Extension                April 2019

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Protocol operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Delay estimation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Metric computation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Stability issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  Backwards and forwards compatibility  . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Packet format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Timestamp sub-TLV in Hello TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Timestamp sub-TLV in IHU TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   The Babel routing protocol [BABEL] does not mandate a specific
   algorithm for computing metrics; existing implementations use a
   packet-loss based metric on wireless links and a simple hop-count
   metric on all other types of links.  While this strategy works
   reasonably well in many networks, it fails to select reasonable
   routes in some topologies involving tunnels or VPNs.

   Consider for example the following topology, with three routers A, B
   and D located in Paris and a fourth router located in Tokyo,
   connected through tunnels in a diamond topology.

                      +------------+
                      | A (Paris)  +---------------+
                      +------------+                \
                     /                               \
                    /                                 \
                   /                                   \
     +------------+                                     +------------+
     | B  (Paris) |                                     | C  (Tokyo) |
     +------------+                                     +------------+
                   \                                   /
                    \                                 /
                     \                               /
                      +------------+                /
                      | D (Paris)  +---------------+
                      +------------+

Jonglez & Chroboczek    Expires October 28, 2019                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft             Babel RTT Extension                April 2019

   When routing traffic from A to D, it is obviously preferable to use
Show full document text