Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A few questions and comments:

(1) Section 1. Per “That is, some routers must be capable of some form of
Source Address Dependent Routing (SADR), if only as described in [RFC3704]”,
I’m not sure what minimal SADR technique is being described in RFC3704.  What
section?

(2) Section 3.5.  Per “However, when evaluating scalable implementations of the
solution, it would be reasonable to assume that the maximum number of ISPs that
a site would connect to is five”, what is the basis of the up to _five_ ISPs?

(3) Section 5. Per “If all of the ISP uplinks are working, the choice of source
address by the host may be driven by the desire to load share across ISP
uplinks …”, how does an individual host have enough information to make that
kind of decision?

(4) Section 5.  Per “An external host initiating communication with a host
internal to a PA multihomed site will need to know multiple addresses  for that
host in order to communicate with it using different ISPs to the multihomed
site.”, what is mean by “in order to communicate with it using different ISPs”?
 Why would being multi-homed this matter?  Wouldn’t one IP address be
sufficient? Section 9.  Per “It recommends that a given host verify the
original packet header included into ICMPv6 error message was actually sent by
the host itself”, is this guidance to the host or to network stack implementers?

(5) Section 9.  Given the current (helpful) text about the threat of a spoofed
ICMPv6 message, it would be equally useful to discuss the threat to the other
approach in Section 5 (i.e., DHCPv6) – a rogue DHCPv6 server.

A few editorial nits:

** Section 4. s/As as/As/

** Section 5.1.  Typo.  s/such as way/such a way/

** Section 5.2.3 Multiple Typos.  s/signalling/signaling/g

** Section 5.2.3.  Typo.  s/An site/A site/

** Section 5.6.  Per the use of the term “wall garden”, do you mean “walled
garden”?

** Section 5.6 and 5.7.1.  Multiple Typos.  s/envinronments /environments/g

** Section 6.  Typo.  s/mutiple/multiple

** Section 6.  Missing space.
/[I-D.ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains]takes/[I-D.ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains]
takes/

** Section 9.  Typo.  /mechanim/mechanism/