Re: 6MAN Adoption Call for: draft-baker-6man-multi-homed-host-03

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Behcet,

On 07/10/2015 10:14, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Ole,
> 
> Here are my comments on this short (about 6 pages) draft.
> First, I don't know if I am qualified to comment on a draft
> co-authored by two ex-ADs and ex-IETF chairs, maybe I am not :-)
> 
> Section 1.
> It says:
> The combination of existing recommendations for home
>    gateways [RFC6092] [RFC7084] can also result in such filtering.
> 
>  how could a set of  requirements text result in such a normative
> looking behavior?

I guess we mean "Implementations that combine existing recommendations..."

> It says:
> 
> Therefore, the only safe solution is to
>    implement the features defined in this document.
> 
> 
> It is not explained why (is it safe and secure)?

It doesn't mean "safe" in the sense of security. It means "safe" in
the sense that it will work in all scenarios. Needs rephrasing.

> End of Section 1:
> This section is normally about scope and related work. However the
> related work discussion seems to have completely overlooked 6man WG
> discussions that happened over quite long time period. Also related
> solution proposals such as draft-pfister-6man-sadr-ra, etc.

IMHO we can trace discussions of this problem back at least ten years
(e.g. draft-huitema-multi6-ingress-filtering from 2004). If the WG adopts
the draft and wants us to add a literature review, we can certainly do
that (IMHO as an appendix to help the simplicity of the main text).
Of course it would include your work and Pierre's.

> Section 2.
> 
> A host receives prefixes in a Router Advertisement [RFC4861]
> 
> what about RFC 4191? 4191 also gives prefixes and the host may receive them?

Good catch. We need to clarify that source-based next hop selection
has priority over router preferences.

> 
> Section 3.2
> 
> This selection rule would be applicable in a host
>    following the recommendation in the previous paragraph.
> 
>  This is a single paragraph section. Which paragraph is the previous paragraph?

It should be "previous section". This is an editing mistake.

> 
> Lastly the title:
> 
> Host routing in a multi-prefix network
> 
> This title gives the impression that the draft is about "host routes"
> while it seems like this draft has nothing to do with host routes.

Yes, perhaps "Routing packets from hosts in a multi-prefix network"
would be clearer.

Thanks for the review. We'll hold these points until the WG adoption
call is resolved.

     Brian