idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-babel-applicability-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC6126]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (July 8, 2016) is 2842 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-savage-eigrp-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-clausen-lln-loadng-14 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6126 (Obsoleted by RFC 8966) Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Chroboczek 3 Internet-Draft IRIF, University of Paris-Diderot 4 Intended status: Informational July 8, 2016 5 Expires: January 9, 2017 7 Applicability of the Babel routing protocol 8 draft-ietf-babel-applicability-00 10 Abstract 12 This document describes some application areas where the Babel 13 routing protocol [RFC6126] has been found to be useful. 15 Status of This Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 22 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 23 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2017. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 35 document authors. All rights reserved. 37 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 38 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 39 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document. Please review these documents 41 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 42 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 43 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 44 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 45 described in the Simplified BSD License. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50 2. Existing successful deployments of Babel . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 2.1. Hybrid networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 2.2. Large scale overlay networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2.3. Small unmanaged networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. Potential deployments of Babel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3.1. Pure mesh networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 4. Application Areas where Babel is not recommended . . . . . . 3 57 4.1. Large, stable networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 4.2. Low-power networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 1. Introduction 64 Babel [RFC6126] is a loop-avoiding distance-vector routing protocol 65 that aims to be robust in a variety of environments. 67 This document describes a few areas where Babel has been found to be 68 useful. It is structured as follows. In Section 2, we describe 69 application areas where Babel has been successfully deployed. In 70 Section 3, we describe application areas where Babel works well, but 71 has not been widely deployed yet. In Section 4, we describe 72 application areas where deployment of Babel is not encouraged because 73 better alternatives are available. 75 2. Existing successful deployments of Babel 77 2.1. Hybrid networks 79 Babel is able to deal with both classical, prefix-based ("Internet- 80 style") routing and flat ("mesh-style") over non-transitive link 81 technologies. Because of that, it has seen a number of succesful 82 deployments in medium-sized hybrid networks, networks that combine a 83 wired, aggregated backbone with meshy wireless bits at the edges. No 84 other routing protocol known to us is similarly robust and efficient 85 in this particular type of network. 87 2.2. Large scale overlay networks 89 The algorithms used by Babel (loop avoidance, hysteresis, delayed 90 updates) allow it to remain stable and efficient in the presence of 91 unstable metrics, even in the presence of a feedback loop. For this 92 reason, it has been successfully deployed in large scale overlay 93 networks, built out of thousands of tunnels spanning continents, 94 where it is used with a metric computed from links' latencies 95 [DELAY-BASED]. 97 2.3. Small unmanaged networks 99 Because of its small size and simple configuration, Babel has been 100 deployed in small, unmanaged networks (three to five routers), where 101 it serves as a more efficient replacement for RIP [RFC2453], albeit 102 with good support for wireless links. 104 3. Potential deployments of Babel 106 There are application areas for which Babel is a good fit, but where 107 it has not seen major deployments yet. 109 3.1. Pure mesh networks 111 Babel has been repeatedly shown to be competitive with dedicated 112 routing protocols for wireless mesh networks [REAL-WORLD] 113 [BRIDGING-LAYERS]. However, this particular niche is already served 114 by a number of mature protocols, notably OLSR-ETX as well as OLSRv2 115 [RFC7181] equipped with the DAT metric [DAT], so Babel has not seen 116 major deployments in pure meshes yet. 118 4. Application Areas where Babel is not recommended 120 There are a number of application areas where Babel is a poor fit. 122 4.1. Large, stable networks 124 Babel relies on periodic updates, and even in a stable network, it 125 generates a constant amount of background traffic. In large, stable, 126 well-administered networks, it is preferable to use protocols layered 127 above a reliable transport mechanism, such as OSPF [RFC5340], EIGRP 128 [EIGRP] or IS-IS [RFC1195]. 130 4.2. Low-power networks 132 Babel relies on periodic updates and maintains within each node an 133 amount of state that is proportional to the number of reachable 134 destinations. In networks containing resource-constrained or 135 exteremely low-power nodes, it may be preferable to use a protocol 136 that limits the amount of state maintained and propagated; we have 137 heard of AODVv2 [AODVv2], RPL [RFC6550] and LOADng [LOADng]. 139 5. References 141 [AODVv2] Perkins, C., Ratliff, S., Dowdell, J., Steenbrink, L., and 142 V. Mercieca, "Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector Version 2 143 (AODVv2) Routing", draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 (work in 144 progress), January 2016. 146 [BRIDGING-LAYERS] 147 Murray, D., Dixon, M., and T. Koziniec, "An Experimental 148 Comparison of Routing Protocols in Multi Hop Ad Hoc 149 Networks", Proc. ATNAC 2010, 2010. 151 [DAT] Rogge, H. and E. Baccelli, "Packet Sequence Number based 152 directional airtime metric for OLSRv2", draft-ietf-manet- 153 olsrv2-dat-metric-12 (work in progress), December 2015. 155 [DELAY-BASED] 156 Jonglez, B. and J. Chroboczek, "A delay-based routing 157 metric", March 2014, . 159 [EIGRP] Savage, D., Ng, J., Moore, S., Slice, D., Paluch, P., and 160 R. White, "Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol", 161 draft-savage-eigrp-04 (work in progress), August 2015. 163 [LOADng] Clausen, T., Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Niktash, A., Igarashi, 164 Y., Satoh, H., Herberg, U., Lavenu, C., Lys, T., and J. 165 Dean, "The Lightweight On-demand Ad hoc Distance-vector 166 Routing Protocol - Next Generation (LOADng)", draft- 167 clausen-lln-loadng-14 (work in progress), January 2016. 169 [REAL-WORLD] 170 Abolhasan, M., Hagelstein, B., and J. Wang, "Real-world 171 performance of current proactive multi-hop mesh 172 protocols", Asia-Pacific Conference on Communication 2009, 173 2009. 175 [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and 176 dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. 178 [RFC2453] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453, November 179 1998. 181 [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF 182 for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008. 184 [RFC6126] Chroboczek, J., "The Babel Routing Protocol", RFC 6126, 185 February 2011. 187 [RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J., 188 Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, 189 JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for 190 Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012. 192 [RFC7181] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg, 193 "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2", 194 RFC 7181, April 2014. 196 Author's Address 198 Juliusz Chroboczek 199 IRIF, University of Paris-Diderot 200 Case 7014 201 75205 Paris Cedex 13 202 France 204 Email: jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr