Re: I wonder what is being going on

[shyam bandyopadhyay <[e-mail]>]

I was not aware of this document.
I wonder why this draft was not published as a RFC?
On top of that none of the documents e.g. RFC 8028,
RFC 8043 and draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming makes a reference
to this draft.

Thanks,
Shyam

On Monday, March 11, 2019, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Maybe this?
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huitema-multi6-hosts-02#section-4.2
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> *From:* rtgwg <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of * shyam bandyopadhyay
> *Sent:* lundi 11 mars 2019 17:14
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Cc:* Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Fwd: I wonder what is being going on
>
>
>
>
> Dear Area Director,
>
> Routing Working Group,
>
> IETF
>
>
>
> I am writing to with the intention to resolve the conflict
>
> between draft-shyam-site-multi and RFC 8028,
>
> RFC 8043 and draft-ietf-rtgwg-pa-multihoming.
>
>
>
> I had raised the issue to IESG and IAB earlier.
>
> Recently IAB has released a report as a reply to my input.
>
> I am quoting IAB's response and attaching the file of IAB response
>
> as well.
>
>
>
> IAB report states:
>
>
>
> On point 2, the IAB understands from a review of the datatracker that the
> documents are still under review for publication by the ISE. The IAB does
> not direct the ISE to publish specific documents; the stream’s editorial
> independence is its key feature. If the ISE does publish the documents, the
> IAB believes it will join a longer conversation on the topic of source
> address based routing, and that this would not normally imply any change of
> status of RFC 8028 or other documents that form part of that conversation.
> Other relevant work includes RFC 1970, RFC 2461, RFC 4861, RFC 5533, RFC
> 7048, and any number of related working group discussions.
>
> This is just a statement with over simplification
> without getting into the details of solution for
> site multihoming.
>
> The term 'source address based routing' is nothing new,
> but how it is supposed to be used to solve what kind of
> problem is the matter of concern.
>
> Traditionally routing is based on destination address
> and there are multiple protocols like RIP, BGP, OSPF
> and each has got its own flavor and use.
>
> Documents like RFC 1970, RFC 2461, might have used the term
> 'source address based routing', but none of them
> specified how it is to be used to solve the problem
> of site multihoming. Otherwise, what is the use of writing
> another document like RFC 8028?
>
> Let me describe once again how draft-shyam-site-multi
> has tackled the issue of routing associated with site
> multihoming:
>
> It is neither completely 'source address based routing'
> nor completely 'destination address based routing',
> but it is the combination of both.
>
> 1. To communicate from one host to another within the
> same customer site, it is traditional 'destination
> address based routing'.
>
> 2. To communicate from a host of one customer site to a
> host of another customer site, it is neither completely
> 'source address based routing' nor completely 'destination
> address based routing'. To achieve this with only 'source
> address based routing' or only with 'destination
> address based routing', it requires the routing table
> of the entire world to be brought in, which is a
> very costly approach. To solve this issue it uses 'source
> address based routing' from the source host to the customer
> edge router of that customer site and from CE router of
> first customer site to the destination host using 'destination
> address based routing'. In short it is described as 'default
> routing based on source domain of the source address of
> the outgoing traffic'.
>
> This unique solution was first introduced in
> section 2.4.1 of draft-shyam-mshn-ipv6-07.txt (from
> which draft-shyam-site-multi was derived). RFC 8028 just
> elaborates this solution. RFC 8043 and draft-ietf-rtgwg-pa
> -multihoming are also based on the same solution.
>
> I would request IETF to show me a document where
> this solution was provided earlier. If any such
> document exists, I withdraw everything that I claim.
> Otherwise, I would request IETF to revoke RFC 8028,
> RFC 8043 and draft-ietf-rtgwg-pa-multihoming. They can
> be reproduced by making a reference to
> draft-shyam-site-multi showing what they are trying to
> achieve on top of whatever has already been stated in
> draft-shyam-site-multi. This is how contribution of
> the contributors of RFC 8028, RFC 8043
> and draft-ietf-rtgwg-pa-multihoming will be properly
> evaluated.
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Shyam
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Alissa Cooper* <[e-mail]>
> Date: Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:05 AM
> Subject: Re: I wonder what is being going on
> To: shyam bandyopadhyay <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>,
> <[e-mail] <[e-mail]>>
>
>
>
> Hi Shyam,
>
> Please direct your comments to [e-mail].
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> > On Feb 25, 2019, at 8:27 PM, shyam bandyopadhyay <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alissa,
> >
> > I am writing to you as I am not fully
> > aware of the process of publication of a RFC.
> >
> > There was a last call review date on 02-19-2019 for
> > draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming.
> >
> > I have said many times earlier that the
> > basic principle based on which RFC 8028, RFC 8043
> > and draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming
> >  are written, i. e. "default routing based on
> > source address of outgoing packets" was first
> > introduced on draft-shyam-site-multi.
> >
> > I had written earlier to AD Mr. Martin Vigoureux that
> > draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming
> > should make a reference to draft-shyam-site-multi
> > with an illustration what it is being trying to
> > achieve on top of whatever has already been stated on
> > draft-shyam-site-multi.
> >
> > Output of the review from Mr. Nicolai Leymann
> > shows no major or minor issues found and the
> > draft can be published with some minor editing.
> >
> > I get a feel that Mr. Nicolai Leymann is not
> > aware of the existence of draft-shyam-site-multi.
> >
> > So, I would request the reviewer to go through
> > draft-shyam-site-multi and suggest necessary changes
> > required based on my input.
> >
> > By the way, IETF should consider publishing
> > draft-shyam-site-multi prior to publishing
> > documents that are dependent on draft-shyam-site-multi.
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> > Shyam
>