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

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Thu, 26 April 2018 03:16 UTC

Return-Path: <furry13@gmail.com>
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 75E2C12DA04; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 8ym0X_Hou5B2; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A0211241F3; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id o123-v6so25880649lfe.8; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/idHPi+T87PPhIxJxKr3LUcopFh4Qoi/0i76TlTG0es=; b=coI8f0PY07j9bXCQOS7kSv9XJXHFKToZ04w8bhYsR/N+4B3pROYDcd7iHqqmUe8XJN 035snTWzweI4M0Y7Jy3UWG4V1xhnOvy7gPTJw2GINb4kqLZVUYezx3nuyehpbT384vKH QLoD86F6pSTqnw9MwXYyUBg7HCY4LVw6OnYuneREp12u5W4P40RRy68om50Na67ODB2g vORDtH0WB0WNDgnkkDzEKBXI8CUuM5ealkbmOUw5u6YoOlZcyPdDxhwc+CvAswvY8cG1 25w9ExysWV5Mxb2VPJbKW8KPBmWdAmJnP8AQbCepmbJlPISPAk29VnIAgxNBqBFWbL6G BDiQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/idHPi+T87PPhIxJxKr3LUcopFh4Qoi/0i76TlTG0es=; b=suN/Cz28ptZWqORwLUE5yBeUeFPwjUUoi4WNGQrmgq1nHHAEs0430nwZspaJ3Wci62 6dX0yPo+RaStV+qHPZAL+5uUWICOm2N1fKqziHaoEMoQke/RBCBYXsitas0EGNu1rc9O ngcNzsFPDcnndoawpNoWVzaeRiTAZohwcRK4k6QUIybO7FyRGGQievB3MX1KXCN094W0 GN80cxiZxtOFQkJGGcS2RwOMTHBaHD20CJKCHXAZYEnZmCtZTOUa5r2OfaPvLgl092Nj oP8uRmX9OxXFdeaCLu0DUQaxSYcE48GQf3WKQaDDImrMYsN6kPXvlvuZnnUo1cbwmi1r txhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tB4X4xSaCNnmaOUPMJ4B+u+cdp4n+kLQj0GBkp3E2iOcTJ6nms1 0XmO7upmsseQwca4WvSacHwwDdJpIwL87vvrrVyQOj4R
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx486xr/6FUCneWyOrJE35CHdKvtgQLUdP6e8WhjNV59fI9B6y59A1YoK9UWgL+gH+t3y4ysd/INLRYlBdJ5X+I0=
X-Received: by 10.46.152.22 with SMTP id a22mr15794178ljj.27.1524712560425; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a19:5c04:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERnZmCLSC=0gfwLFixAnyNasuKqsFF4VR-ttqySJcSo0Zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <44C0D21A-9788-4AEE-B814-D3670D3B3110@gmail.com> <f3a6a3d5-9aaf-54dd-edfc-dd58d223afde@uclouvain.be> <CA+b+ERnZmCLSC=0gfwLFixAnyNasuKqsFF4VR-ttqySJcSo0Zw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:15:39 +1000
Message-ID: <CAFU7BAQbvdWbotyCVwiRjmRr-2uC-Mo=wq_XDvUtriqAoih-+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RTGWG WGLC draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/fjne13-pp1HjyiqTdBWTf7V05GI>
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: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 03:16:04 -0000

(back from vacation finally, sorry for the delayed response)

Robert, Olivier,

First of all, thank you for the comments.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> Also please note that references in the draft need review and update.
>
> Example: missing ref to RFC8041 .. draft is still listing:
>
>    [I-D.ietf-mptcp-experience]
>               Bonaventure, O., Paasch, C., and G. Detal, "Use Cases and
>               Operational Experience with Multipath TCP", draft-ietf-
>               mptcp-experience-07 (work in progress), October 2016.


Noted, will be fixed.

> 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.

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry