Re: draft-baker-6man-multiprefix-default-route-00.txt is a newdraft

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 12 November 2007 13:40 UTC

Return-path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IrZWH-0007Qr-0W; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:40:05 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IrZWG-0007QV-9e for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:40:04 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IrZWD-0003en-4B for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:40:04 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,405,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="250408733"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2007 05:40:00 -0800
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lACDe0TW029976; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:40:00 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lACDdxfb027943; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:40:00 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:39:59 -0800
Received: from [10.43.1.208] ([10.21.147.167]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:39:59 -0800
In-Reply-To: <55C1E39E-7FE1-4912-B730-017C1C5CAC09@it.uc3m.es>
References: <200711081001.lA8A14C00375@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <6A990F09-F0D4-43AA-BA1F-D81AB94628D6@cisco.com> <55C1E39E-7FE1-4912-B730-017C1C5CAC09@it.uc3m.es>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <A4AE6069-5936-4C7E-AFD6-6100FB66A8EE@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:39:55 +0000
To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.1.2 (Tiger)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Nov 2007 13:39:59.0548 (UTC) FILETIME=[85067FC0:01C82531]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1147; t=1194874800; x=1195738800; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20<fred@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-baker-6man-multiprefix-default-route-00.txt=20i s=20a=20=20=20newdraft |Sender:=20; bh=OKKNKnzj7W4F8eW/NoxiRVvhZocL1+kz7lfsoF6Z0bQ=; b=k8b/v76nrVuIErYv5SqWq2LRvvjJXljAmHMOwf2RMGFaO1I6I433k2QFxlRmcAaykRf88loO 3Rfv1WCIFmSwRc2mof22sn26bjp00hEo+iN8yLABdhl4yEV06m0LR76X;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: draft-baker-6man-multiprefix-default-route-00.txt is a newdraft
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Nov 12, 2007, at 12:27 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

> AFAIU, you are essentially proposing to perform source address  
> based routing by the hosts and by the routers in a multiprefix  
> site, is that correct?

I don't like the term, because I first do a destination lookup and  
only look up the source address in certain cases. Kind of like the  
previous comment on source routing, which in IEEE 802.5, DSR, and RFC  
791 IP means that the source specifies all or part of the routing  
path. I think the term mis-states the case.

But yes, in certain cases where there is a multipath route, the point  
is that if the datagram is handed to the wrong ISP and the ISP is  
doing ingress filtering, the datagram will be dropped, and hence I  
suggest that we direct it toward the right ISP.

Is there something wrong with that? Would you prefer it be dropped as  
it leaves the site? Would you prefer that the matter be indeterminate?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFHOFerbjEdbHIsm0MRAh89AKDO1FiDeHknTEpXSwl0SP30BXSxXwCgj389
ovysRXKu7Rr1wrO93DvioZQ=
=u6Oy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------