Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-06.txt

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 30 October 2017 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9901A13F43E; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OqbysOXFrhgH; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC45413942C; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s75so12896267pgs.0; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SWCiAtVwnLPwVv/BrrN47LEEZwQGfmyYaqk7hNKgeio=; b=MQaMTCYZBomexcN9tAuI+vKMqxpAFbzWKok9vzTrHMrp3nNSokANuuHzORGUv3RcHn TYbXdbT8wHFic5Hm04DPdgopSi+jizmiWJ2B6+UyQBCCZz68UxEyq42cizEuLhKjD9ge TLrrvVZqfx+vzw/tTFxG7bJ5Q21bNwvMMX+yXbv5KaeV9juh3bWcARGZuChonHmhnTnE IvhKe1Z5AzTPtlj2xgIQBfZCB4TK0Z+P/ZUyCo9dDpP4g6UVBEllJ7A5OKtn1+/RHOhy aoW0MoyCufTJl/bzCUNx0M2BZXDyzIxYsE3fmBY/AghUqR0Ulgf0b/8aLya9NaO+u9TD 7UuQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SWCiAtVwnLPwVv/BrrN47LEEZwQGfmyYaqk7hNKgeio=; b=HT1wTT0B0kCVitPByE3wMs36DykD2DzHyXgBFQggywjjd961SOzBjtkc+zTjKFqOpn /ysm8p1xtrUo18EZCCq1BTa4iopCESeiog9IQ2ijvlFz8liS61EcSuMamQ8nds/Rzzpg LHXC1Io2YHRbi9gEB6OCFN6lcG8zh6W1C2B20bnB3+RiAGx+3jNmSia6YFiAmCwRFB/m 86L9HD0ypFVeH+zz6pbqPf+KXqi4wGkrB8yVcr/QbeEZku6H/XzL8m46admSTrW0NZBN uiYzidKLuHwMKCrR/jFp7MD4zqM1YRgJYYFk+jmOci0jj7ogVvj/kjaRxxbkkseaLaiV T6OQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaU6lad+a80Ha9sV24uGSksSsBn8RXoPJlrq3Hv65qQ8KREXiJ0N /1A6rbxAJNZTm0MZ7VGPwWgm8A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+TUqaCKzMVFYcJP/VjAMgkJ+rRsX5r7fsGmR14MC6IGj/+9oCEsScbRh76bWYBIdfPsX20xpw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id b15mr10271113pff.344.1509402356198; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e001:3d21:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e001:3d21:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id s6sm18012917pgq.57.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-06.txt
References: <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:25:53 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:25:58 -0000


>    Both IPv4 [RFC0791] and IPv6 [RFC2460] architectures specify that
>    determination of the outgoing next-hop for packet forwarding is based
>    solely on the destination address contained in the packet header.

1) RFC8200 obsoleted RFC2460 recently.

2) I can't find any statement in RFC8200 to justify "solely". In fact,
as far as I can see the document says nothing about the destination address
except that it's "the address of the intended recipient".
is quite explicit that source-address-based routing is allowed.

I'm not sure that RFC791 justifies the "solely" either. There's only one
very oblique statement, hidden in the discussion of loose source routes
("the routing is to be based on the destination address field"). If
there's any such restriction for IPv4, it must be hidden in RFC1812.
I couldn't find it, though.

It's fair to say that in practice, we have based forwarding solely
on the destination address. But I don't believe it's specified.

(Apart from that, I'm all for the draft, fwiw.)