[Babel-users] [babel] rather than ripemd160...

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

> Why not? If it's not MTI you risk the case where you get to pick between
> "good performance on weak devices" and "interoperability with RFC-only
> implementations".

Is there any evidence that there are devices that can reasonably run Babel
and that are too weak to use SHA256 for protecting control traffic?

I don't have an ARM device handy right now, but a 450MHz MIPS 24Kc is able
to SHA256 on the order of 16MB/s.  That's 10000 full-size frames per second,
or on the order of 600000 Babel updates per second.

My suggestion is to implement whatever the list recommends (Blake2B or 2S)
in both BIRD and babeld, but to keep the status quo (SHA256 is MTI) in the spec.

-- Juliusz