Re: [homenet] dst/src routing drafts (for IETF-91 rtgwg)

Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com> Tue, 28 October 2014 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ot@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5625A1A6FAA; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 06:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sl9nvQMLG3Ze; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 06:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [IPv6:2001:1868:205::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D78C1A6FE7; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 06:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.30] (cm-84.215.22.20.getinternet.no [84.215.22.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6087B628B; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 06:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <DFE4317C-E4B6-44AB-AED4-2FBBBD2888DA@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:06:26 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B445E8FD-13EE-4014-8D1C-7C9D4A188D2D@cisco.com>
References: <20141020204033.GD236844@jupiter.n2.diac24.net> <20141022190653.GB868521@jupiter.n2.diac24.net> <DFE4317C-E4B6-44AB-AED4-2FBBBD2888DA@cisco.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/fsL_TAzcY9aUk-cHnhOB8TZBO-w
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>
Subject: Re: [homenet] dst/src routing drafts (for IETF-91 rtgwg)
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:06:39 -0000

Fred,

>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-routing-extra-qualifiers/?include_text=1
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing/?include_text=1
> 
> Speaking strictly for myself, I’m not sure why homenet is relevant. The technology is related to networks that have different routing depend on on one’s use case. A class of solutions for it has been called the “fish” problem, and built using multi-topology routing. In homenet, it’s called SADR, and is primarily about egress routing (routing to an egress to an upstream ISP that gave you a PA prefix). While one doesn’t really want to confuse theory with practice, in theory it could be used between points of a network, to prevent folks using one set of prefixes to talk with another set, or to force routing of some sessions in some ways.
> 
> Personally, those are a class of problems I associate with campus networks more than residential networks.

why homenet is relevant?
isn't multi-prefix multi-homing one of the most obvious use cases for source address dependent routing? that's not restricted with homenets, but also any small network. I'm assuming large networks will continue with PI addresses and BGP based multihoming.

cheers,
Ole