[Babel-users] Babel: Clarifications on seqno request handling in bird

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

> I don't think RFC8966 is really framed in bird's "multi protocol" mindset

See the beginning of Section 3.7, which describes how a route
redistributed from another protocol has router-id set to the local
router's id.  Babel updates for the same prefix are processed as usual,
with the routes inserted and maintained in Babel's route table but not
necessarily installed into the kernel's forwarding table.

> so it's unclear to me whether this is something we have to fix or
> not.

I'm not familiar with BIRD's internals, so I don't know.  There are two
possible approaches:

  - drop all Babel routes for the static prefix ; or
  - maintain routes as usual, but don't select them.

The latter is what babeld does (see xroute.c).

>> A node that has lost all feasible routes to a given destination but still
>> has unexpired unfeasible routes to that destination MUST send a seqno
>> request;
> 
> I could for example read this as the above mentioned static route
> constituting a feasible route received from a bird "internal" babel
> neighbour which would make the behaviour described above perfectly fine,
> no?

It is always safe to send a seqno request.  However, unless it is known
that there is a Babel speaker at that address, it's pointless: a non-Babel
node will not know how to react to a Babel message.

However, if there's a static route that's selected, there's not much point
maintaining the feasibility of the Babel route; just let it become
unfeasible, and optionally send a request when the static route is
retracted.

> Further, looking at the code implementing RFC section 3.8.2.2 in
> babel_handle_update:
> 
>     if (!feasible && (metric != BABEL_INFINITY) &&
>         (!best || (r == best) || (metric < best->metric)))
>         /*^ */
>       babel_generate_seqno_request(p, e, s->router_id, s->seqno + 1, nbr);
>
> It's unclear to me what the (!best) condition corresponds to from the RFC
> text.

That used to be clear in RFC 6126 (Section 3.8.2.2):

    Additionally, a node SHOULD send a unicast seqno request whenever it
    receives an unfeasible update from a currently unselected neighbour
    that is "good enough", i.e., that would lead to the received route
    becoming selected were it feasible.

It became less clear in RFC 8966:

    Additionally, since metric computation does not necessarily coincide
    with the delay in propagating updates, a node might receive an
    unfeasible update from a currently unselected neighbour that is
    preferable to the currently selected route (e.g., because it has
    a much smaller metric); in that case, the node SHOULD send a unicast
    seqno request to the neighbour that advertised the preferable update.

It is definitely a good idea to send a request in this case, especially if
you ignore unfeasible updates for unknown routes (first clause of Section
3.5.3).

-- Juliusz