Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Mirja,

> my expected behaviour from a multi-homed
> network would have been that my traffic is
> simply rerouted to the other ISP.

That expectations can be addressed today with PI address blocks or by use
of third party virtual PA address anchor nodes (think as example LISP
RTRs). This proposal is about use of PA blocks. I asked this question long
time ago and got answer that PI IPv6 blocks are not easily accessible. One
would hope v6 would at least solve that issue.

With PA addresses unfortunately your TCP will fail resulting in need to
re-establish the session I am afraid. One more reason to think about QUIC
...

Thx,
R.

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 5:12 PM Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: Discuss
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have a question basically on section 5.3, however, maybe I'm
> misunderstanding
> something or there is an open aspect here: If I have selected one IP
> address
> and then open a TCP connection and during using this TCP connection the
> connection to the selected ISP fails, my expected behaviour from a
> multi-homed
> network would have been that my traffic is simply rerouted to the other
> ISP.
> However, all solutions discussed in sec 5.3. assume that the endpoint will
> switch its IP address. In case of TCP, which is not migration-capable, as
> indicated by the TSV-ART reviewer (Thanks Michael!), this would mean that I
> have to open a new TCP connection and start over again. That doesn't see
> optimal. Should this be considered?
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I was also wondering about the question Alvaro raised in point B. I mean
> even
> if unscoped forwarding is used for internal traffic, this would probably
> still
> prevent spoofing, however, it doesn't seem correctly that unscoped
> forwarding
> table are not needed anymore.
>
> Nit:
> Sec 6 s/This document defines a way for network/This document defines a
> way for
> networks/ or
>           s/This document defines a way for network/This document defines
> a way
>           for the network/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>