Re: Proposed change to draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host after IESG review

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

The key point there is the support for source/destination routing in the forwarding plane; how the FIB obtains the route is secondary. It might be worthwhile making that point...

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 10:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This message concerns
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-09 .
> 
> There is one remaining issue in the draft before it can get IESG approval.
> One of the routing ADs proposes the following change. It does not affect
> the normative content of the draft, but it is a technical change (deletion)
> so we'd like to hear if there are any objections from the WG. Please comment
> within a week (silence means no objection to this change). Some more
> background is below the proposed change.
> 
> OLD:
> 
> 2.2.  Expectations of multihomed networks
> 
>   The mechanism specified in this document requires some form of
>   support from the routing protocols used in multihomed networks.  One
>   such way of providing the requisite support in routing protocols is
>   described in a routing protocol independent fashion
>   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing].  Network designs exist that can
>   usefully limit themselves to static routing (such as a simple tree
>   network), or may internally use no routers at all, such as a single
>   LAN with two CE routers, each of which leads to a different upstream
>   network.
> 
> NEW:
> 
> 2.2.  Expectations of multihomed networks
> 
>   Network designs exist that can usefully limit themselves to static
>   routing (such as a simple tree network) or may internally use no
>   routers at all, such as a single LAN with two CE routers, each of
>   which leads to a different upstream network.  However, the
>   mechanism specified in this document may require some form of
>   support from the routing protocols used in some multihomed networks.
>   The details of such support are out of scope for this document.
> 
> You can see Alia's original DISCUSS comment dated 2016-08-02 at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host/history/ .
> The "SHOULD" mentioned there has already been removed, but her considered
> opinion is that the routing solution is simply out of scope for this draft.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> 
>