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

Jen Linkova <> Mon, 01 July 2019 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847831200E5; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 08:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 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] 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 aVnLRok8nhDh; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 08:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::742]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D19791200DF; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 08:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g18so11290743qkl.3; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 08:14:49 -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=d94NL3/2VDXGUlV5koZawBYX6MXz1Vjg4nJckGjwpzc=; b=UVFQj7pp798+eEvju9Ly9deKkH1olyn9nYL5oUqyp6sXKjPM1ANLv9sKLXyPSPipLU ZXPl94rBIOY6HWzxlRqqOCo5tWy50sUPlshwrfWb+DLhy2jFtY3sW4Efbxw0FEfkafv7 794IZD7+PhV36KS7EmaP6hQSXygz02/J37jX8juXgnJ0SFFpiMgxFnr1/X1CnaDaNGz0 9T1q28vXRPAa5y5lbv2dchS2wvsyJEeqBupGClYfODOywLObbsGbZE1crnPLnCvcfITf FC2W2cZdCaSJtHVDz/NAPecn5/QM6ZJT04QO1habf0MOUN5IUp6rkaHj+q7M+xcXjNBa Cuhw==
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=d94NL3/2VDXGUlV5koZawBYX6MXz1Vjg4nJckGjwpzc=; b=me4641/8G5sXhtUg9BiJKmLNM+1Lkrke1hw5x7M4uppsX33FM9Vg9Wd+J5qsmv0Wrd v74kc4bGw1Pg9SgdieYDllAxO2zhu9erwsn23R2vf4WzON5W68makYjS5ALe3MBBlnS2 UE05xhHYcbSAuy4mSsJ/CHnN8RIakAPIJk/LV6oxEVtXfk9vjE7EpNTs0nfSltRTl49+ e6mXDcOWtmY1OMU3FsUB5qR74m3DVaN1M4hfgXOhEFwcFmC9CJSTkyIaQBXfaF/X5VVa KISjNkBVRirmz+0GO5AktEV5QsZqKrOFwxElZEFKnd2kk9NISGaYE6kYtOrXvpvbR9I7 s/3A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVB0fzRgjuEsEFzgtdGNI6xKW27ylfJVoh6YRMv7lfbd+3UppQ5 xJVS8PJH2erC7G4r5aFEEULurWaj34qpb338b/7etdsAgcg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy954KQKIMQDKC3JVFn/HKZuOgExVAAQ/SsRtg+fqjLigzSfdYkapM3V4xin4Sd//rLKzfOnQ5XODoMMA/kH4E=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:15cd:: with SMTP id o13mr20571386qkm.417.1561994088877; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 08:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Jen Linkova <>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 01:14:37 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: (with COMMENT)
To: Magnus Westerlund <>
Cc: The IESG <>, Ronald Bonica <>, rtgwg-chairs <>,, Routing WG <>
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: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 15:14:52 -0000

Hi Magnus,

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:25 PM Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker
<>; wrote:
> Regarding Section 7.3 and Section 1 paragraph:
> A possible addition here either in the above paragraph or at least in Section
> 7.3 that deploying enterprise PA based multi-homing solution actually benefits
> the usage of multi-path protocols as this ensures that the MP capable transport
> protocol get a well defined handle to something that likely lead to path
> diversity. So from my perspective, a working well enough PA based multi-homing
> solution benefits the deployment of multi-path protocols which in its turn
> makes the PA based multi-homing work even better than NATed or PI based ones.

The section 6 of the -09 says that
'However the

   mechanism proposed in this document attempts to ensure that the
   subset of source addresses available for applications and upper-layer
   protocols is selected with the up-to-date network state in mind.'

I guess it's close to what you are saying - that the solution we
propose would provide the multi-path protocols with the signal what
addresses could be used.
Or would you like to see more text on this topic?


SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry