IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RTGWG WGLC draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Thu, 26 April 2018 03:20 UTC

Return-Path: <furry13@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E50912DA06; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 07UnTacOiav3; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 644E812DA04; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id r125-v6so28463839lfe.2; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1SQX+k4F/DUXbHJ4BljllvnDiuXNqUwDBhdFTCEjNjQ=; b=oeYOLYEZhIJZNNFcmN7Fclrmel7zvtfr1baulYVafCnkw1cTInyiZRb++CwKqYAWiK Y0cXq3pNkZNfa0nkuaIoLGLQmNJ6YnGQFj2RUz9ns1qpPjSeDSH/kEmQWfwQ4k6P3zIq ZcNfviCGo3NxMPwIyV1Y4SVAn5mnJk7nMtR7OXY2xRtWBNJD9A9paBE9ZYeISme43n6f B9t2tUD7JXpESY5Fjr32fZq2rKgan47akUboSWr7z0srxAyFITEdn6m6b3qW5ApASrFM y5gS2PB2M3mIvLEFL4zZIf6stABA/5bJ2+NcyDbel0BAIuZHiNqmpZEJUIFimTjjxed7 5g6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1SQX+k4F/DUXbHJ4BljllvnDiuXNqUwDBhdFTCEjNjQ=; b=ZNp8uyAzQBB+fmUYSwsIAirER4MDS7EPVZiVk5DAtqZJIeuw9zncl9S662l/BX8vjL 2z4GLzzI6t80+NG3trUiMEtNNc6VMU6VQGvUsJmnR2HoQPpTCWYLTqTR6Uh4H2Du9xIT m9lr1i5sYS65SoIiaAwdtJVvrWxwM6rXQMYLSpvQ0jYK+Y7uj1vqN2Cpn/aqu4YRwq6U m4FXf8FIW+0GhJoc+3P3MF1IA4gw21Ps75N+AxFHh+sfUm66778jGGMrsqMmY8AuW3Zn MSK34+GT9G+EFx8LVXfE55Gh9rNV3vDVQw+LUKTtDsGuWRGvJ442torwm1VQgYaLTvzH koiw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tADK6ZmRH1/NXFBiuDzQxThk9twLFuPbTLi7mRn14m63YsEQ8w4 xsFKXem8lmvjXVv6EWnfcBIUwlhj4AN16cuT6rY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZowxiWNDt2bK2qneEC/LKcVaKwJMMQXYuZr65ITggu8OPCpDtUWd5BHKU5086o+zAtd3rdOKa+jkqC4ZtR5Xs0=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:e991:: with SMTP id j17-v6mr16060981lfk.119.1524712805647; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a19:5c04:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2xkerG5VVAerm0BgFAkEAxFDN2VrmG=g9TGVGbs8qzTZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <44C0D21A-9788-4AEE-B814-D3670D3B3110@gmail.com> <f3a6a3d5-9aaf-54dd-edfc-dd58d223afde@uclouvain.be> <CAO42Z2xkerG5VVAerm0BgFAkEAxFDN2VrmG=g9TGVGbs8qzTZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:19:45 +1000
Message-ID: <CAFU7BAQmC+=+-yN9ViV24P-AUN4emtpbXWutUX8P+n7e=Nnxfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RTGWG WGLC draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/-edGXtcpoy5L5NzCatdih9fNwaw>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 03:20:12 -0000

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The document discusses a range of solutions to enable legacy hosts to
>> select the right source address to use to reach a given destination.
>> However, I think that it complety ignores a very clean and efficient
>> solution to the multihoming problem : using multipath transport.

>+1
>
> I've been thinking the same thing about this related draft:
>
> "Using Conditional Router Advertisements for Enterprise Multihoming"
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-01

Oh, I'm not sure it's the right WG to discuss that draft but as you've
mentioned it, I'd like to clarify:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-03
explicitly states that it describes the tactical solution, which can
be deployed *right now* in enterprise environments, where vast
majority of devices do not even support rule 5.5 of default address
selection, not mentioning having multipath transports enabled.

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email