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

Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 27 June 2019 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1683A120043; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 06:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming@ietf.org, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, rbonica@juniper.net, rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.98.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <156164189308.21548.8089796408903213033.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 06:24:53 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/upBd0oPX5p94-fVzX0L0ZSXEiXk>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 27 Jun 2019 13:24:53 -0000

Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Section 7.3 and Section 1 paragraph:

   It may be desirable for an enterprise site to connect to multiple
   ISPs using provider-assigned (PA) addresses, instead of PI addresses.
   Multihoming with provider-assigned addresses is typically less
   expensive for the enterprise relative to using provider-independent
   addresses.  PA multihoming is also a practice that should be
   facilitated and encouraged because it does not add to the size of the
   Internet routing table, whereas PI multihoming does.  Note that PA is
   also used to mean "provider-aggregatable".  In this document we
   assume that provider-assigned addresses are always provider-
   aggregatable.

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.