Last Call Review of draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-06
review-ietf-babel-source-specific-06-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2020-10-24-00
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 | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/tUEfELkVA6RalpbXENsZCgEXc5Y | |
Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2020-10-24 |
review-ietf-babel-source-specific-06-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2020-10-24-00
Ready. 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 occur. > 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 documents.