Re: New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-06.txt

[Ray Hunter <[e-mail]>]

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I submitted Rev. 06 of SADR Overview draft. This revision contains
> changes from IETF 92, namely:
>
> -corporate VPN  scenario in Section 3 contributed by Brian Carpenter
> as discussed in our F2F meeting in Dallas with the chairs, Brian,
> Pfister and myself.
>
> -Third party next hop text in Section 5 where the third part next hop
> issue has been left out of scope.
>
> I think this draft is ready for adoption call.
> Also contributors wishing to coauthor, send me an email.
>
> Regards,
>
> Behcet
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-06.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:           draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview
> Revision:       06
> Title:          Source Address Dependent Routing and Source Address
> Selection for IPv6 Hosts
> Document date:  2015-03-31
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          16
> URL:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-06.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview/
> Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-06
> Diff:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-06
>
> Abstract:
>     This document presents the source address dependent routing from the
>     host perspective.  Multihomed hosts and hosts with multiple
>     interfaces are considered.  Different architectures are introduced
>     and with their help, why source address selection and next hop
>     resolution in view of source address dependent routing is needed is
>     explained.  The document concludes with an informative guidelines on
>     the different solution approaches.
>

 > If host configuration is done using router advertisement messages
    then there is a need to define new router advertisement options for
    source address dependent routing.  These options include Route Prefix
    with Source Address/Prefix Option.  Other options such as Next Hop
    Address with Route Prefix option and Next Hop Address with Source
    Address and Route Prefix option will be considered in Section 5.3

Like many others, I still don't get the need for the Next Hop Address 
option, but I guess that could be thrashed out later.

I also still wonder whether the WG really needs three drafts that have 
considerable overlap, and yet still leave considerable gaps:

We have:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-06
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-6man-next-hop-ra-04
and
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pfister-6man-sadr-ra-00

But I'd expect any "SADR overview" to also cover router - router 
forwarding behaviour. Not just end host - router.

And was there ever any agreement reached on which was the more beautiful 
of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-6man-next-hop-ra-04 or 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pfister-6man-sadr-ra-00 ?

In my mind, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pfister-6man-sadr-ra-00  
is a logical progression from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4191

But that also leaves major gaps on how routers would interact, plus any 
potential issues at an AS-boundary e.g. updating BCP38 to filter inbound 
and outbound SADR routes.

In short: I'm still not convinced we have the right problem statement.

regards,
RayH