Homenet profile of the Babel routing protocol
IRIF, University of Paris-Diderot
Case 7014
75205 Paris Cedex 13
France
jch@irif.fr
This document defines the subset of the Babel routing protocol and its
extensions that a Homenet router must implement, as well as the
interactions between the Home Networking Control Protocol (HNCP) and
Babel.
The core of the Homenet protocol suite consists of the Home Networking
Control Protocol (HNCP) , a protocol used for
flooding configuration information and assigning prefixes to links,
combined with the Babel routing protocol .
Babel is an extensible, flexible and modular protocol: minimal
implementations of Babel have been demonstrated that consist of a few
hundred lines of code, while the "large" implementation includes support
for a number of extensions and consists of over ten thousand lines of
C code.
This document consists of two parts. The first specifies the exact
subset of the Babel protocol and its extensions that is required by an
implementation of the Homenet protocol suite. The second specifies how
HNCP interacts with Babel.
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 RFC 2119
.
The Babel routing protocol and its extensions are defined in a number
of documents:
RFC 6126bis defines the Babel routing
protocol. It allows Babel's control data to be carried either over
link-local IPv6 or over IPv4, and in either case allows announcing both
IPv4 and IPv6 routes. It leaves link cost estimation, metric computation
and route selection to the implementation. Distinct implementations of
RFC 6126bis Babel will interoperate, in the sense that they will
maintain a set of loop-free forwarding paths. However, if they implement
conflicting options, they might not be able to exchange a full set of
routes; in the worst case, an implementation that only implements the IPv6
subset of the protocol and an implementation that only implements the IPv4
subset of the protocol will not exchange any routes. In addition, if
implementations use conflicting route selection policies, persistent
oscillations might occur.
The informative Appendix A of RFC 6126bis suggests a simple and
easy to implement algorithm for cost and metric computation that has been
found to work satisfactorily in a wide range of topologies.
While RFC 6126bis does not provide an algorithm for route selection,
its Section 3.6 suggests selecting the route with smallest metric
with some hysteresis applied. An algorithm that has been found to work
well in practice is described in Section III.E of
.
Five RFCs and Internet-Drafts define optional extensions to Babel:
HMAC-based authentication , source-specific
routing , delay-based routing
and ToS-specific routing
. All of these extensions interoperate with
the core protocol as well as with each other.
REQ1: a Homenet implementation of Babel MUST encapsulate Babel control
traffic in IPv6 packets sent to the IANA-assigned port 6696 and either the
IANA-assigned multicast group ff02::1:6 or to a link-local unicast
address.
Rationale: since Babel is able to carry both
IPv4 and IPv6 routes over either IPv4 or IPv6, choosing the protocol used
for carrying control traffic is a matter of preference. Since IPv6 has
some features that make implementations somewhat simpler and more reliable
(notably link-local addresses), we require carrying control data over
IPv6.
REQ2: a Homenet implementation of Babel MUST implement the IPv6 subset
of the protocol defined in the body of RFC 6126bis.
Rationale: support for IPv6 routing is an
essential component of the Homenet architecture.
REQ3: a Homenet implementation of Babel SHOULD implement the IPv4
subset of the protocol defined in the body of RFC 6126bis. Use of other
techniques for acquiring IPv4 connectivity (such as multiple layers of
NAT) is strongly discouraged.
Rationale: support for IPv4 will likely remain
necessary for years to come, and even in pure IPv6 deployments, including
code for supporting IPv4 has very little cost. Since HNCP makes it easy
to assign distinct IPv4 prefixes to the links in a network, it is not
necessary to resort to multiple layers of NAT, with all of its
problems.
REQ4: a Homenet implementation of Babel MUST implement source-specific
routing for IPv6, as defined in draft-ietf-babel-source-specific
.
Rationale: source-specific routing is an
essential component of the Homenet architecture. Source-specific routing
for IPv4 is not required, since HNCP arranges things so that a single
non-specific IPv4 default route is announced (Section 6.5 of ).
REQ5: a Homenet implementation of Babel MUST use metrics that are of
a similar magnitude to the values suggested in Appendix A of
RFC 6126bis. In particular, it SHOULD assign costs that are no less
than 256 to wireless links, and SHOULD assign costs between 32 and 196 to
lossless wired links.
Rationale: if two implementations of Babel
choose very different values for link costs, combining routers from
different vendors will cause sub-optimal routing.
REQ6: a Homenet implementation of Babel SHOULD distinguish between
wired and wireless links; if it is unable to determine whether a link is
wired or wireless, it SHOULD make the worst-case hypothesis that the link
is wireless. It SHOULD dynamically probe the quality of wireless links
and derive a suitable metric from its quality estimation. The algorithm
described in Appendix A of RFC 6126bis MAY be used.
Rationale: support for wireless transit links is
a distinguishing feature of Homenet, and one that is requested by our
users. In the absence of dynamically computed metrics, the routing
protocol attempts to minimise the number of links crossed by a route, and
therefore prefers long, lossy links to shorter, lossless ones. In
wireless networks, "hop-count routing is worst-path routing".
While it would be desirable to perform link-quality probing on some
wired link technologies, notably power-line networks, these kinds of links
tend to be difficult or impossible to detect automatically, and we are not
aware of any published link-quality algorithms for them. Hence, we do not
require link-quality estimation for wired links of any kind.
NR1: a Homenet implementation of Babel MAY perform route selection by
applying hysteresis to route metrics, as suggested in Section 3.6 of
RFC 6126bis and described in detail in Section III.E of
. However, it MAY simply pick the route with
the smallest metric.
Rationale: hysteresis is only useful in
congested and highly dynamic networks. In a typical home network, stable
and uncongested, the feedback loop that hysteresis compensates for does
not occur.
NR2: a Homenet implementation of Babel MAY include support for other
extensions to the protocol, as long as they are known to interoperate with
both the core protocol and source-specific routing.
Rationale: a number of extensions to the Babel
routing protocol have been defined over the years; however, they are
useful in fairly specific situations, such as routing over global-scale
overlay networks or multi-hop wireless networks
with multiple radio frequencies . Hence, with the
exception of source-specific routing, no extensions are required for
Homenet.
The Homenet architecture cleanly separates between configuration, which
is done by HNCP, and routing, which is done by Babel. While the coupling
between the two protocols is deliberately kept to a minimum, some
interactions are unavoidable.
All the interactions between HNCP and Babel consist of HNCP causing
Babel to perform an announcement on its behalf (under no circumstances
does Babel cause HNCP to perform an action). How this is realised is an
implementation detail that is outside the scope of this document; while it
could conceivably be done using a private communication channel between
HNCP and Babel, in existing implementations HNCP installs a route in the
operating system's kernel which is later picked up by Babel using the
existing redistribution mechanisms.
REQ7: if an HNCP node receives a DHCPv6 prefix delegation for prefix
P and publishes an External-Connection TLV containing a Delegated-Prefix
TLV with prefix P and no Prefix-Policy TLV, then it MUST announce
a source-specific default route with source prefix P over Babel.
Rationale: source-specific routes are the main
tool that Homenet uses to enable optimal routing in the presence of
multiple IPv6 prefixes. External connections with non-trivial prefix
policies are explicitly excluded from this requirement, since their exact
behaviour is application-specific.
REQ8: if an HNCP node receives a DHCPv4 lease with an IPv4 address and
wins the election for NAT gateway, then it MUST act as a NAT gateway and
MUST announce a (non-specific) IPv4 default route over Babel.
Rationale: the Homenet stack does not use
source-specific routing for IPv4; instead, HNCP elects a single NAT
gateway and publishes a single default route towards that gateway
( Section 6.5).
REQ9: if an HNCP node assigns a prefix P to an attached link and
announces P in an Assigned-Prefix TLV, then it MUST announce a route towards
P over Babel.
Rationale: prefixes assigned to links must be
routable within the Homenet.
NR3: an HNCP node that receives a DHCPv6 prefix delegation MAY announce
a non-specific IPv6 default route over Babel in addition to the
source-specific default route mandated by requirement REQ7.
Rationale: since the source-specific default
route is more specific than the non-specific default route, the former
will override the latter if all nodes implement source-specific routing.
Announcing an additional non-specific route is allowed, since doing that
causes no harm and might simplify operations in some circumstances,
e.g. when interoperating with a routing protocol that does not
support source-specific routing.
NR4: an HNCP node that receives a DHCPv4 lease with an IPv4 address and
wins the election for NAT gateway SHOULD NOT announce a source-specific
IPv4 default route.
Homenet does not require support for IPv4
source-specific routing. Announcing IPv4 source-specific routes will not
cause routing pathologies (blackholes or routing loops), but it might
cause packets sourced in different parts of the Homenet to follow
different paths, with all the confusion that this entails.
Both HNCP and Babel carry their control data in IPv6 packets with
a link-local source address, and implementations are required to drop
packets sent from a global address. Hence, they are only susceptible to
attacks from a directly connected link on which the HNCP and Babel
implementations are listening.
The security of a Homenet network relies on having a set of "Internal",
"Ad Hoc" and "Hybrid" interfaces (Section 5.1 of )
that are assumed to be connected to links that are secured at a lower
layer. HNCP and Babel packets are only accepted when they originate on
these trusted links. "External" and "Guest" interfaces are connected to
links that are not trusted, and any HNCP or Babel packets that are
received on such interfaces are ignored. ("Leaf" interfaces are a special
case, since they are connected to trusted links but HNCP and Babel traffic
received on such interfaces is ignored.) This implies that the security
of a Homenet network depends on the reliability of the border discovery
procedure described in Section 5.3 of .
If untrusted links are used for transit, which is NOT RECOMMENDED,
then any HNCP and Babel traffic that is carried over such links MUST be
secured using an upper-layer security protocol. While both HNCP and Babel
support cryptographic authentication, at the time of writing no protocol
for autonomous configuration of HNCP and Babel security has been defined.
This document requires no actions from IANA.
A number of people have helped with defining the requirements listed in
this document. I am especially indebted to Barbara Stark and Markus
Stenberg.
Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
The Babel Routing Protocol
Home Networking Control Protocol
Source-Specific Routing in Babel
Babel Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) Cryptographic Authentication
Delay-based Metric Extension for the Babel Routing Protocol
Diversity Routing for the Babel Routing Protocol
A delay-based routing metric
Available online from http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3488
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-chouasne-babel-tos-specific-00.xml