IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 26 April 2018 03:28 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@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 6D27D12711E; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 5YbCGZjaHzW5; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-f169.google.com (mail-wr0-f169.google.com [209.85.128.169]) (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 8BA8E1241F3; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-f169.google.com with SMTP id u18-v6so27929560wrg.3; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0QNmpZ8Coz8Cr/vxa+J+KFphALbdmemkXHV2coZh6Do=; b=H/M+Qrij9P3NIxDjOpiKRfhxrVZR/CtGjxN/V2o+hwycZTvAw+fimYqwtRn3qb7Wi5 QDFd3NGZt/8zD/+qO5CVUyxZU+V2M9YnonTanl6YNUy7HwTuUC9NNCwEu9I4t9wDEZWO 7EXRd484RspJjjCWsC3kbYlU9/Jz/2hDwFllCWEOBEIrq9Xqw4J/WE0PXP6bQgYsA9dW Q0uPdoQ99j5S/OMiWsuMvBZ3o3zSZHpiWtGOSrt9fYCR/rjRWuAsPzn7nwZGpZj4whAj ZGUuh9XO06vFwEQpZGYEGbWknT3pi2IoEpzf0PEj+IbF7q82TO6PzMQeaQPQ1sgLqvg1 Zm6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAxXyL+TW/bHSdmITOMJMP4+XEyEsJ86m5UK5GNJ2sCdUtUNAq1 nO6HcVu5KIt9uyMINcOIOxiTiY1V3rICalqMVkU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/ZfinTKat3BGFyFIy7aEhq5kB9JZZbPaKyvm3WsCs+tu8DVnmAb/Lsff+97LNvY4+bCi3Gntetwcl3vpr7xK0=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:9814:: with SMTP id v20-v6mr25661654wrb.93.1524713317772; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BAQbvdWbotyCVwiRjmRr-2uC-Mo=wq_XDvUtriqAoih-+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 03:28:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERkwsHHNP1ifibKw3rqBrbo+aWc8=e5WDOTODiZ+=zp3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RTGWG WGLC draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Cc: Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b0b026056ab7fb1b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/h0hy804zfWvu9s-pWDEo0zhF1xc>
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 03:28:41 -0000

Hi Jen,

Many thx for reply.

One nit however which needs to be stated here is that there are neat
solutions in the market today which do not require any upgrade to hosts to
use multipath tcp between sites.

That's what your draft should discuss to make it very practical and
pragmatic for interesed enterprises.

Many thx,
Robert.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 23:16 Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:

> (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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email