Re: I wonder what is being going on
shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com> Tue, 12 March 2019 15:33 UTC
Return-Path: <shyamb66@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 EA4AF126F72 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 2KhYGmW8gOpr for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2a]) (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 D01F4129AA0 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com with SMTP id z18so1840757vso.7 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:33:02 -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=NzqKY3mwcLMXQWbmgu16MxXIhSfCPt6AxJ3/bnNV1ns=; b=FLs38R7RMOS7DotpzDYbSISqUtku5gc2csocGznJPO6ww/Mth18PJQ3baDOhW6VODu nor4HVjynNPAdpUTWmGjDpsJuN9JxI0NZ+WrJ2nr5W5jrg3fDcfmEx/krVRcYK+s1JDM e6EnBhVC5lJ8O8CFShMtYj5UnmEuDIPIgyNH2bv4LFLdp1nYETKIEE4CiGmbz41gnUhI +WqPkUaiehmFiYnvzHacSPXzaOKFqhLBK1Gt9vH8Os2leMlm3rSy1XigPMzNhZTkdNbr /D8TMfyzRceCbfpLLfLBXTqE/nbyVDf3f9nAdzRpi/thgaooLm72XyvzI6SxfCApx4F9 sWng==
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=NzqKY3mwcLMXQWbmgu16MxXIhSfCPt6AxJ3/bnNV1ns=; b=Npppn3WoPNtswfiLAuFTnQMF4AY8eDCnXCXMo5Tdot35nVhQtpPqwZHqkRf5bfH/61 DgIzqk3diDhOESzbqslX72sY1EyhCyHTH3Vp6PDXe/tFV5dd1aFL9nHych1C3irViGBf rDl4+hYBoSojG8J5o9DJEIc5cjJ6SH6gOCQ+iSEjwvQ26hgMMS/X5Nd1KiahoItkIO/6 vnfOKJeFL7g77KITOMf2W76Ol73PQ8nFMnUlBb6XUtUPDLGjXNzlPvAAvoh0h+PND7vF lT2Vr9WOw1RUq/1TqprI87H4THtEwTI38zMIMoE/9ljw7W8oCinD85SFBjXJ6OCFtdhB JUDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUZdxZCkppYbBo4P+u6Xgi8awfCTgHmW0ZFM0qRci6b1hBv1BEz vBzSzBUeZdeVYiauyLI+ztRAz2KbmePYy4MVsVs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwChW9WyvI7MFkGKLpgEZv38ZQ/adk1l5wSPxlsv6dPVpvOobiNIQ99W6KT7c6ERlTff99+PMkcxYFjvfZiL80=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:f3d3:: with SMTP id j19mr19367454vsn.210.1552404781790; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:ab0:7389:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB35657B6B969B34D520A41FF3D8480@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAPTMOt+jvTbrH1_YOmXJ0YQpLB5LdePekwkd2HyvLMLfGbnpZQ@mail.gmail.com> <04F9E6B4-2398-400E-8BB9-21935AE14845@cooperw.in> <CAPTMOtKcPnwv9bD4xbRB1h=HwddDe1RznwApL-kf_NV1b0NbRA@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB35657B6B969B34D520A41FF3D8480@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:33:00 +0700
Message-ID: <CAPTMOtKcDkXBkxbZOyGat=ozTRZm-xkWgXoqy5Jcb+QB8DUEqw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I wonder what is being going on
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000090fa150583e7672f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/ofASsQXRDIG9TSNWulDJJxw3nZE>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:33:05 -0000
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) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > Maybe this? > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huitema-multi6-hosts-02#section-4.2 > > > > All the best, > > > > Pascal > > > > *From:* rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * shyam bandyopadhyay > *Sent:* lundi 11 mars 2019 17:14 > *To:* rtgwg@ietf.org > *Cc:* Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> > *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* <alissa@cooperw.in> > Date: Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:05 AM > Subject: Re: I wonder what is being going on > To: shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com> > Cc: <Martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, Adrian Farrel <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, > <n.leymann@telekom.de <n..leymann@telekom.de>> > > > > Hi Shyam, > > Please direct your comments to rtgwg@ietf.org. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > On Feb 25, 2019, at 8:27 PM, shyam bandyopadhyay <shyamb66@gmail.com> > 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 >
- Fwd: I wonder what is being going on shyam bandyopadhyay
- RE: I wonder what is being going on Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: I wonder what is being going on shyam bandyopadhyay
- Re: I wonder what is being going on Fred Baker
- Re: I wonder what is being going on William Atwood
- Re: I wonder what is being going on Mark Smith
- Re: I wonder what is being going on Mark Smith
- RE: I wonder what is being going on Azinger, Marla