Re: Soliciting viewpoints and comments on source/destination routing

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Jeroen,

>> The chairs have asked me to solicit review and commentary on
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases
>> 
>> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases
>> "Requirements and Use Cases for Source/Destination Routing", Fred
>> Baker, 2014-10-21
>> 
>> There are at least two layers of discussion. One, as a working group,
>> do we agree that there is a problem to solve here?
> 
> Not really as there are lots of people who are getting multiple
> upstreams and are doing source based routing.
> 
> As an example:
> http://blog.altimos.de/2013/07/ipv6-source-address-routing-with-multiple-uplinks-sixxs/
> 
> Mostly a 'solved' problem thus. But it depends on your use cases.

the examples you cite seem to be static setups. yes, you can do source routing by configuring essentially static routes in every router. for a multi-prefix multi-homed network, we need a dynamic routing protocol to support it.

>> I obviously think there is, but I am one voice.
> 
> I think it might be worthwhile documenting the pro/cons and how to do
> things.
> 
> But RFC3178 does a reasonable job at that already, hence maybe you could
> add to RFC3178 in the form of a 'bis' variant?

different assumptions I believe. we are assuming ingress filtering at the ISPs and no additional service from the ISPs (like tunnels and dynamic routing).

MHMP IPv6 essentially puts the host in charge of the multi-homing decision.

cheers,
Ole