Delay-based Metric Extension for the Babel Routing Protocol
draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-04

Network Working Group                                         B. Jonglez
Internet-Draft                                                  ENS Lyon
Updates: 8967 (if approved)                                J. Chroboczek
Intended status: Standards Track             IRIF, Université Paris Cité
Expires: 27 January 2024                                    26 July 2023

      Delay-based Metric Extension for the Babel Routing Protocol
                   draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-04

Abstract

   This document defines an extension to the Babel routing protocol that
   measures the round-trip time (RTT) between routers and makes it
   possible to prefer lower latency links over 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 27 January 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Jonglez & Chroboczek     Expires 27 January 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             Babel RTT Extension                 July 2023

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  RTT sampling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Data structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Protocol operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Wrap-around and node restart  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  Implementation notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  RTT-based route selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Smoothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Cost computation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Hysteresis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Backwards and forwards compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Packet format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Timestamp sub-TLV in Hello TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Timestamp sub-TLV in IHU TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   The Babel routing protocol [RFC8966] 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.

Jonglez & Chroboczek     Expires 27 January 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft             Babel RTT Extension                 July 2023

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

                Figure 1: Four routers in a diamond topology

   Consider for example the topology described in Figure 1, with three
   routers A, B and D located in Paris and a fourth router C located in
   Tokyo, connected through tunnels in a diamond topology.  When routing
   traffic from A to D, it is obviously preferable to use the local
   route through B, as this is likely to provide better service quality
   and lower monetary cost than the distant route through C.  However,
   the existing implementations of Babel consider both routes as having
   the same metric, and will therefore route the traffic through C in
   roughly half the cases.

   In this document, we specify an extension to the Babel routing
   protocol that enables precise measurement of the round-trip time
   (RTT) of a link, and allows its usage in metric computation.  Since
   this causes a negative feedback loop, special care is needed to
   ensure that the resulting network is reasonably stable (Section 4).

   We believe that this protocol may be useful in other situations than
   the one described above, such as when running Babel in a congested
   wireless mesh network or over a complex link layer that performs its
   own routing; the fine granularity of the timestamps used (1µs) should
   make it possible to experiment with RTT-based metrics on this kind of
   link layers.

2.  Specification of Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Jonglez & Chroboczek     Expires 27 January 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft             Babel RTT Extension                 July 2023

3.  RTT sampling

3.1.  Data structures

   We assume that every Babel speaker maintains a local clock, that
   counts microseconds from an arbitrary origin.  We do not assume that
   clocks are synchronised: clocks local to distinct nodes need not
   share a common origin.  The protocol will eventually recover if the
   clock is stepped, so clocks need not persist across node reboots.

   Every Babel speaker maintains a Neighbour Table, described in
   Section 3.2.4 of [RFC8966].  This extension extends every entry in
   the Neighbour Table with the following data:

   *  the Origin Timestamp, a 32-bit timestamp (modulo 2^32) according
      to the neighbour's clock;

   *  the Receive Timestamp, a 32-bit timestamp according to the local
      clock.

   Both values are initially undefined.

3.2.  Protocol operation

   The RTT to a neighbour is estimated using an algorithm due to Mills
   [MILLS], originally developed for the HELLO routing protocol and
   later used in NTP [NTP].

   A Babel speaker periodically sends Hello messages to its neighbours
   (Section 3.4.1 of [RFC8966]).  Additionally, it occasionally sends a
   set of IHU messages, at most one per neighbour (Section 3.4.2 of
   [RFC8966]).

Jonglez & Chroboczek     Expires 27 January 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft             Babel RTT Extension                 July 2023

      A          B
        |      |
     t1 +      |
        |\     |
        | \    |
        |  \   |  Hello(t1)
        |   \  |
        |    \ |
        |     \|
        |      + t1'
        |      |
        |      |               RTT = (t2 - t1) - (t2' - t1')
        |      |
        |      + t2'
        |     /|
        |    / |
        |   /  |
        |  /   |  Hello(t2')
        | /    |  IHU(t1, t1')
        |/     |
     t2 +      |
        |      |
        v      v

                         Figure 2: Mill's algorithm

   In order to enable the computation of RTTs, a node A MUST include in
   every Hello that it sends a timestamp t1 (according to A's local
   clock), as illustrated in Figure 2.  When a node B receives A's
   timestamped Hello, it computes the time t1' at which the Hello was
   received (according to B's local clock).  It then MUST record the
   value t1 in the Origin Timestamp field of the Neighbour Table entry
   corresponding to A, and the value t1' in the Receive Timestamp field
   of the Neighbour Table entry.

   When B sends an IHU to A, it checks whether both timestamps are
   defined in the Neighbour Table.  If that is the case, then it MUST
   ensure that its IHU TLV is sent in a packet that also contains a
   timestamped Hello TLV (either a normally scheduled Hello, or an
   unscheduled Hello, see Section 3.4.1 of [RFC8966]).  It MUST include
   in the IHU both the Origin Timestamp and the Receive Timestamp stored
   in the Neighbour Table.

   Upon receiving B's packet, A computes the time t2 (according to its
   local clock) at which it was received.  A MUST then verify that it
   contains both a Hello TLV with timestamp t2' and an IHU TLV with two
   timestamps t1 and t1'.  If that is the case, A computes the value
   RTT = (t2 - t1) - (t2' - t1') (where all computations are done modulo

Jonglez & Chroboczek     Expires 27 January 2024                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft             Babel RTT Extension                 July 2023

   2^32), which is a measurement of the RTT between A and B.  (A then
   stores the values t2' and t2 in its Neighbour Table, as B did
   before.)

   This algorithm has a number of desirable properties.  First, the
   algorithm is symmetric: A and B use the same procedures for
   timestamping packets and computing RTT samples, and both nodes
   produce one RTT sample for each received (Hello, IHU) pair.  Second,
   since there is no requirement that t1' and t2' be equal, the protocol
   is asynchronous: the only change to Babel's message scheduling is the
   requirement that a packet containing an IHU also contain a Hello.
   Third, since it only ever computes differences of timestamps
   according to a single clock, it does not require synchronised clocks.
   Fourth, it requires very little additional state: a node only needs
   to store the two timestamps associated with the last hello received
   from each neighbour.  Finally, since it only requires piggybacking
   one or two timestamps on each Hello and IHU TLV, it makes efficient
   use of network resources.

   In principle, this algorithm is inaccurate in the presence of clock
   drift (i.e., when A's and B's clocks are running at different
   frequencies).  However, t2' - t1' is usually on the order of seconds,
   and significant clock drift is unlikely to happen at that time scale.

3.3.  Wrap-around and node restart

   Timestamp values are a count of microseconds stored as a 32-bit
   unsigned integer; thus, they wrap around every 71 minutes or so.
   What is more, a node may occasionally reboot and restart its clock at
   an arbitrary origin.  For these reasons, very old timestamps or
   nonsensical timestamps MUST NOT be used to yield RTT samples.

   We suggest the following algorithm to achieve that.  When a node
   receives a packet containing a Hello and an IHU, it SHOULD compare
   the current local time t2 with the Origin Timestamp contained in the
   IHU; if the Origin Timestamp appears to be in the future, or if it is
   in the past by more than a time T (the value T=3 minutes is
   RECOMMENDED), then the timestamps are still recorded in the neighbour
   table, but SHOULD NOT be used for computation of an RTT sample.

   Similary, the node compares the Hello's timestamp with the Receive
   Timestamp recorded in the Neighbour Table; if the Hello's timestamp
   appears to be older than the recorded timestamp, or if it appears to
   be more recent by an interval larger than the value T, then the
   timestamps SHOULD NOT be used for computation of an RTT sample.

Jonglez & Chroboczek     Expires 27 January 2024                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft             Babel RTT Extension                 July 2023

3.4.  Implementation notes

   The accuracy of the computed RTT samples depends on Transmit
   Timestamps being computed as late as possible before transmission of
   a packet containing a Hello TLV, and Receive Timestamps being
   computed as early as possible after reception of a packet containing
   a (Hello, IHU) pair.  We have found the following implementation
   strategy to be useful.

   When a Hello TLV is buffered for transmission, we insert a PadN sub-
   TLV (Section 4.7.2 of [RFC8966]) with a length of 4 octets within the
   TLV.  When the packet is ready to be sent, we check whether it
   contains a 4-octet PadN sub-TLV; we then overwrite the PadN sub-TLV
   with a Timestamp sub-TLV with the current time, and send out the
   packet.

   Conversely, when a packet is received, we immediately compute the
   current time and record it with the received packet.  We then process
   the packet as usual, and use the recorded timestamp in order to
   compute an RTT sample.

   The protocol is designed to survive the clock being reset when a node
   reboots; on POSIX systems, this makes it possible to use the
   CLOCK_MONOTONIC clock for computing timestamps.  If CLOCK_MONOTONIC
   is not available, CLOCK_REALTIME may be used, since the protocol is
   able to survive the clock being occasionally stepped.

4.  RTT-based route selection

   The protocol described above yields a series of RTT samples.  While
   these samples are fairly accurate, they are not directly usable as an
   input to the route selection procedure, for at least three reasons.

   First of all, in the presence of bursty traffic, routers experience
   transient congestion, which causes occasional spikes in the measured
   RTT.  Thus, the RTT signal may be noisy, and requires smoothing
   before it can be used for route selection.

   Second, using the RTT signal for route selection gives rise to a
   negative feedback loop: when a route has a low RTT, it is deemed to
   be more desirable, which causes it to be used for more data traffic,
   which may lead to congestion, which in turn increases the RTT.
   Without some form of hysteresis, using RTT for route selection would
   lead to oscillations between parallel routes, which might lead to
   packet reordering and negatively affect upper-layer protocols (such
   as TCP).

Jonglez & Chroboczek     Expires 27 January 2024                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft             Babel RTT Extension                 July 2023

   Third, even in the absence of congestion, the RTT tends to exhibit
   some variation.  If the RTTs of two parallel routes oscillate around
   a common value, using the RTT as input to route selection will cause
   frequent routing oscillations, which, again, indicates the need for
   some form of hysteresis.

   In this section, we describe an algorithm that integrates smoothing
   and hysteresis and has been shown to behave well both in simulation
   and experimentally over the Internet [DELAY-BASED].  While
   implementations MAY use this algorithm, it is considered
   experimental, since we do not currently have a theoretical
   understanding of its behaviour, and in particular we do not know by
   how much it could be simplified without impairing its functionality.

4.1.  Smoothing

   The RTT samples provided by Mills' algorithm are fairly accurate, but
   somewhat noisy: individual samples may be outliers and indicate a
   value much larger than the correct one.  Thus, some smoothing needs
   to be applied first, in order to get rid of these outliers.

   Our current implementation uses an exponential average, as described
   in [DELAY-BASED].  Other algorithms have also been considered, such
   as a moving average or a moving minimum, but we have not evaluated
   their behaviour.

4.2.  Cost computation

   The smoothed RTT value obtained in the previous step needs to be
   mapped to a link cost, suitable for input to the metric computation
   procedure (Section 3.5.2 of [RFC8966]).  Obviously, the mapping
   should be monotonic (larger RTTs imply larger costs).  In addition,
   in order to enhance stability, the mapping should be bounded: above a
   certain RTT, all links are equally bad, and therefore congested links
   do not contribute to routing instability.

Jonglez & Chroboczek     Expires 27 January 2024                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft             Babel RTT Extension                 July 2023

     cost
       ^
       |
       |
       |                           C + max-rtt-penalty
       |                       +---------------------------
       |                      /.
       |                     / .
       |                    /  .
       |                   /   .
       |                  /    .
       |                 /     .
       |                /      .
       |               /       .
       |              /        .
       |             /         .
     C +------------+          .
       |            .          .
       |            .          .
       |            .          .
       |            .          .
     0 +---------------------------------------------------->
       0         rtt-min    rtt-max                          RTT

                  Figure 3: Mapping from RTT to link cost

   We currently use the function described in Figure 3 for mapping RTTs
   to link costs, parameterised by three parameters rtt-min, rtt-max and
   max-rtt-penalty.  For RTTs below rtt-min, the link cost is just the
   nominal cost C of a single hop.  Between rtt-min and rtt-max, the
   cost increases linearly; above rtt-max, the constant value max-rtt-
   penalty is added to the nominal cost.

   The value rtt-min should be slightly larger than the RTT of a local,
   uncongested link.  The value rtt-max should be the RTT above which a
   link should be avoided if possible, either because it is a long-
   distance link or because it is congested; making rtt-max smaller
   improves stability, but prevents the protocol from discriminating
   between high-latency links.  As to max-rtt-penalty, it controls how
   much the protocol will penalise long-distance links.  We suggest the
   default values rtt-min = 10ms, rtt-max = 120ms, max-rtt-
   penalty = 150.

Jonglez & Chroboczek     Expires 27 January 2024                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft             Babel RTT Extension                 July 2023

4.3.  Hysteresis

   Even after applying a bounded mapping from smoothed RTT to a cost
   value, the cost may fluctuate when a link's RTT is between rtt-min
   and rtt-max.  This is effectively mitigated by using a robust
   hysteresis algorithm, such as the one described in Appendix A.3 of
   [RFC8966].

5.  Backwards and forwards compatibility

   This protocol extension stores the data that it requires within sub-
   TLVs of Babel's Hello and IHU TLVs.  As discussed in Appendix D of
   [RFC8966], implementations that do not understand this extension will
   silently ignore the sub-TLVs while parsing the rest of the TLVs that
   they contain.  In effect, this extension supports building hybrid
   networks consisting of extended and unextended routers, and while
   such networks might suffer from sub-optimal routing, they will not
   suffer from blackholes or routing loops.

   If a sub-TLV defined in this extension is longer than expected, the
   additional data is silently ignored.  This provision is made in order
   to allow a future version of this protocol to extend the packet
   format with additional data, for example high-precision or absolute
   timestamps.

6.  Packet format

   This extension defines the Timestamp sub-TLV whose Type field has
   value 3.  This sub-TLV can be contained within a Hello sub-TLV, in
   which case it carries a single timestamp, or within an IHU sub-TLV,
   in which case it carries two timestamps.

   Timestamps are encoded as 32-bit unsigned integers (modulo 2^32),
   expressed in units of one microsecond, counting from an arbitrary
   origin.  Timestamps wrap around every 4295 seconds, or rougly 71
   minutes (see also Section 3.3).

6.1.  Timestamp sub-TLV in Hello TLVs

   When contained within a Hello TLV, the Timestamp sub-TLV has the
   following format:

Jonglez & Chroboczek     Expires 27 January 2024               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft             Babel RTT Extension                 July 2023

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 3    |    Length     |      Transmit timestamp       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          (continued)          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Fields:

   Type      Set to 3 to indicate a Timestamp sub-TLV.

   Length    The length of the body in octets, exclusive of the Type and
             Length fields.

   Transmit timestamp  The time at which the packet containing this sub-
             TLV was sent, according to the sender's clock.

   If the Length field is larger than the expected 4 octets, the sub-TLV
   MUST be processed normally and any extra data contained in this sub-
   TLV MUST be silently ignored.  If the Length field is smaller than
   the expected 4 octets, then this sub-TLV MUST be ignored (and the
   remainder of the enclosing TLV processed as usual).

6.2.  Timestamp sub-TLV in IHU TLVs

   When contained in an IHU TLV, the Timestamp sub-TLV has the following
   format:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 3    |    Length     |        Origin timestamp       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          (continued)          |        Receive timestamp      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          (continued)          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Fields:

   Type      Set to 3 to indicate a Timestamp sub-TLV.

   Length    The length of the body in octets, exclusive of the Type and
             Length fields.

   Origin timestamp  A copy of the transmit timestamp of the last

Jonglez & Chroboczek     Expires 27 January 2024               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft             Babel RTT Extension                 July 2023

             Timestamp sub-TLV contained in a Hello TLV received from
             the node to which the enclosing IHU TLV applies.

   Receive timestamp  The time, according to the sender's clock, at
             which the last timestamped Hello TLV was received from the
             node to which the enclosing IHU TLV applies.

   If the Length field is larger than the expected 8 octets, the sub-TLV
   MUST be processed normally and any extra data contained in this sub-
   TLV MUST be silently ignored.  If the Length field is smaller than
   the expected 8 octets, then this sub-TLV MUST be ignored (and the
   remainder of the enclosing TLV processed as usual).

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has added the following entry to the "Babel Sub-TLV Types"
   registry:

                  +======+===========+=================+
                  | Type | Name      | Reference       |
                  +======+===========+=================+
                  | 3    | Timestamp | (this document) |
                  +------+-----------+-----------------+

                                 Table 1

8.  Security Considerations

   This extension adds additional timestamping data to two of the TLVs
   sent by a Babel router.  Since the timestamps use an arbitrary
   origin, they do not leak private data, such as a node's timezone.
   However, by broadcasting the value of a reasonably accurate local
   clock, they might make a node more susceptible to timing attacks.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors are indebted to Jean-Paul Smetz, who prompted the
   investigation that originally lead to this protocol.  We are also
   grateful to Donald Eastlake, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen, Maria Matejka,
   David Schinazi, Steffen Vogel, and Ondřej Zajiček.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC8966]  Chroboczek, J. and D. Schinazi, "The Babel Routing
              Protocol", RFC 8966, DOI 10.17487/RFC8966, January 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8966>.

Jonglez & Chroboczek     Expires 27 January 2024               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft             Babel RTT Extension                 July 2023

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [DELAY-BASED]
              Jonglez, B. and J. Chroboczek, "A delay-based routing
              metric", March 2014.  Available online from
              http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3488

   [MILLS]    Mills, D., "DCN Local-Network Protocols", RFC 891,
              December 1983, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc891>.

   [NTP]      Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network
              Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5905>.

Authors' Addresses

   Baptiste Jonglez
   ENS Lyon
   France
   Email: baptiste.jonglez@ens-lyon.org

   Juliusz Chroboczek
   IRIF, Université Paris Cité
   Case 7014
   75205 Paris Cedex 13
   France
   Email: jch@irif.fr

Jonglez & Chroboczek     Expires 27 January 2024               [Page 13]