Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-babel-source-specific
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2020-10-27
Requested 2020-10-13
Authors Matthieu Boutier , Juliusz Chroboczek
I-D last updated 2020-10-24
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by He Jia (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-babel-source-specific by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready
Completed 2020-10-24

This document describes an extension for source-specific routing  (also known
as Source-Address Dependent Routing, SADR) to the Babel routing protocol. It's
a well written, clear and complete document.

From an operational point of view, operators should pay special attention to
section 6 - Compatibility to the base protocol:

> The protocol extension defined in this document is, to a great
   extent, interoperable with the base protocol defined in [BABEL] (and
   all previously standardised extensions).  More precisely, if non-
   source-specific routers and source-specific routers are mixed in a
   single routing domain, Babel's loop-avoidance properties are
   preserved, and, in particular, no persistent routing loops will

  > However, this extension is encoded using mandatory sub-TLVs,
   introduced in [BABEL], and therefore is not compatible with the older
   version of the Babel Routing Protocol [RFC6126] which does not
   support such sub-TLVs.  Consequently, this extension MUST NOT be used
   with routers implementing RFC 6126, otherwise persistent routing
   loops may occur.

There are no manageability considerations in this document. I assume that
management actions and objects, if relevant, will be included in complementary