Re: Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: (with COMMENT)

Jen Linkova <> Thu, 04 July 2019 00:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4533E1200D7; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QytqdUdlMwXA; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::844]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4123612007C; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n11so6367617qtl.5; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 17:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WG/ifYv+j5VX8JOQ9XLHrRm14LurRUeDq6Y91U8IIOQ=; b=kH2P8LCXbJadTwBDmIBaoigQZcObovqYR6XGjk0HsoCh5hXWyBjDdL2eV7jZqTNLxr CEUZnvJHsukOZG1rY1hUiqXisoJwtCcYkiBtgpFZPYh6G77zCCr3yrFeB9vnqqyHyM3o 9qg0ALSlKQE3OkxdqCyPmVdZ6kRxKrfENjXwzSSbjx2AeTXFdc0hpl3guotQI/hByShe B5LYjBECO7gv2XAR9NSxep+2pPp375Lz67rc6KBcUvXp+YfdUl5fyxBQdGp/N388iebs Uv5kDWOcnRYX/G0gbI2I8eNc3VqihPBGUU+HWbOTESW3I3bwypnGH7FmT7k9rdETaUmS dP6g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WG/ifYv+j5VX8JOQ9XLHrRm14LurRUeDq6Y91U8IIOQ=; b=cLB/adeF5fZxRfTlxQfU09FEYsWyUuA1i1nUfb1OoDKwhtIeofX+T8HxG3t6NnJYca 82tUoFDOV6+YwVdPV6Wfs1JwxZ4fgjr8/J/i7iWVj1F0MtC6Pcqh1+cCKKO1gBaGflNw er/R1SO15Bi7yyZdVjhWidDvEPykUlhtmm0NCS3mhw1OKcGq6eqwvybOvV5gFGQgIuqQ XIwCs8HK5cWO2pHV7SxiVv/PsSFRS7oLFbhKbbHY47ABihVOuebyORzkyleAxZbW+zfh Y1SX+COS2EJHVC4m1zziGVsJLIitfuOZa0vv9EbaZ3nQclnrkMSKFavM3JXcjmYGNHVE yGFQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX+a0Icsioksrwyse1aJADYJMscb2jnSq/Q34n8kDxbhVWU9iWh kH/2QLzkKR6+yV9iOzuW+LGh6XziHgm9QVRTyDA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy9Z1tKTE0QVeJbZc3M2po0zC6/BO37CUopN8xwtMMWV94WHqT37hsL+RhfSgP/LuNbedOVbXDDs5h5dQkkfsE=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7104:: with SMTP id z4mr1267254qto.52.1562201097126; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 17:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Jen Linkova <>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:44:46 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: (with COMMENT)
To: Magnus Westerlund <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 00:45:01 -0000

Hi Magnus,

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 6:24 PM Magnus Westerlund
<>; wrote:
> It was a non-blocking comment, and from the perspective of how the
> document is written I guess it is not at all necessary to do any
> changes. From my perspective it is a relevant observation that although
> multipath is not a solution for the multihoming a network, multihoming
> with provider addresses is a benefit to multihoming protocols. Which
> indicates that if this should be added it is likely in the introduction
> section or not at all. Your call.

I've updated Section 8.3 (Multipath Transport)
with the following text:

"On the other hand PA-based multihoming could provide additional
   benefits for multipath protocol, should those protocols be deployed
   in the network.  Multipath protocols could leverage source address
   selection to achieve maximum path diversity (and potentially improved

   Therefore deploying multipath protocols could not be considered as an
   alternative to the approach proposed in this document.  Instead both
   solutions complement each other so deploying multipath protocols in
   PA-based multihomed network proves mutually beneficial".

Thanks for your suggestion!

SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry