IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be> Sun, 29 April 2018 09:36 UTC

Return-Path: <olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
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 F2AA01204DA; Sun, 29 Apr 2018 02:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=uclouvain.be
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 YRoJcL2V45cw; Sun, 29 Apr 2018 02:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (smtp.sgsi.ucl.ac.be [130.104.5.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9599120725; Sun, 29 Apr 2018 02:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mbpobo.local (host-78-129-6-94.dynamic.voo.be [78.129.6.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: obonaventure@smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be) by smtp3.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7AEB67EAF0; Sun, 29 Apr 2018 11:36:35 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uclouvain.be; s=selucl; t=1524994596; bh=Z5Hpk4wynhAWkl7ZmPiM71l1pjR/OYrrqcMhfZHxzS8=; h=Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZZcWZT+o05PbTRqi7D8r6g74jvueyM78UrN7r8pOXYnuyF7jQE1/asYljy/CCpO5z iWajhcEcZtjiJs5ll6ZTPC6fCW7ecmMNv65+kbSiRyggWaWM5viyedabiY0HVC/5W9 EgYBXakQ4M0THoTMwwW45buJTjmHarqEmiyX+T1M=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.3-beta2 at smtp-3.sipr-dc.ucl.ac.be
Reply-To: Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be
Subject: Re: RTGWG WGLC draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
References: <44C0D21A-9788-4AEE-B814-D3670D3B3110@gmail.com> <f3a6a3d5-9aaf-54dd-edfc-dd58d223afde@uclouvain.be> <CA+b+ERnZmCLSC=0gfwLFixAnyNasuKqsFF4VR-ttqySJcSo0Zw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFU7BAQbvdWbotyCVwiRjmRr-2uC-Mo=wq_XDvUtriqAoih-+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
Message-ID: <03236c92-1166-13fa-b39d-d7c7c41e6920@uclouvain.be>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 11:36:35 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BAQbvdWbotyCVwiRjmRr-2uC-Mo=wq_XDvUtriqAoih-+A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr-classic
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated,
X-SGSI-Information:
X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: E7AEB67EAF0.AC2BB
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-From: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/STsbt13tEZNfUcwCtFKJ3E0d8Ks>
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: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 09:36:50 -0000

Jen,

>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Olivier Bonaventure<Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be> 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.
> 
> Let me clarify why Section4 discusses SLAAC/DHCP/ICMP instead of
> multipath transport.
> I totally agree that if all hosts were using path-aware transports
> only, it would have solved the problem discussed in the Section 4 of
> the draft.
> However it means that enterprises can not have IPv6 multihoming until
> almost all their traffic is over those path-aware transport protocols
> and I have some concerns re: when it's going to happen.
> 
> Point taken, the document should mention multipath transport and
> explain why we are looking for lower-level solution.
> 

I think that it is worth to document what can be done today with single 
path transport and what will become possible with multipath transport. 
Multipath transport makes the multihoming problem much simpler from a 
network viewpoint. With Multipath TCP and soon Multipath QUIC, we cannot 
ignore the benefits that multipath will bring.

I'm ready to contribute text about multipath or propose a separate 
document if you believe that it would be better to document today's 
(single path) approach in one document and a longer term (multipath) in 
a separate document.


Olivier

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email