Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bowbakova-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-00.txt
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 09 July 2016 13:01 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F63412D08D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 06:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 xvyD8nynQp5s for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 06:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com (mail-wm0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (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 BBF5712D0FA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 06:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id n127so41087907wme.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 Jul 2016 06:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xnLRHyRiYXixq+1nIhy9EEUkP73LiC78euT8YwKAsik=; b=ZfoLM6I9c0nlPq0YUB3fxri698pkc3wDSKusJKBXrgctBfkiwPW7x56L7qQKXas6Py wYM7AfhR8U1Z75gs6ERgc1w/EEr1uwRGsI3os58Mpj/DcmT3kK2bAU96GXFEBHvfeAed KMo5cbOiAgjJKAGROYokBy9NE2w6JJdDWYrl4yLU2ZmYILL/7RuZ7k0tKauSlfZWVM3A JXdrfb0gEo+tDzY61/0e00GqhgvCoJysWZtxTV2G6CHtqGGp3Y97rGUKNNqvpH7YBXjd 9LKrBg8tXLpQLDWYsnHDoonyGa3rdBw45WBZ6F69uv+zZuvNhVeKdbu8+doVDav/Gz4+ oZpw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xnLRHyRiYXixq+1nIhy9EEUkP73LiC78euT8YwKAsik=; b=JVm/jPn98OvKWfDjwLAw6JkGFAjtRDgprDZznYBI/7au/23qp9p5ILTRxwtmby5Lne B+mU8BhR80sH8XIVnEiPI/dTOekmf3R4l7EKq73L5TOIgzZyVdDt0EUh/vi5RaEeP4Ma +WnAnSYyLuBGJgZO2oeUOGRHY0MpP20vUxEpx3q+YaYOUAlDnWcjTtfGU5PMgEPDJKQE 2sYU9MtDsMMrFU8JMWKb+dCV9U3QTCIpMNmqdmxfum1mywsNuhQUZBhUJ64x+TWrsB38 VacgGRPSkb5YUaQyVUUH1zV2GyO8CgyI9D/7wSSe3+mKEekO7h4cagLTKwCgfqfOs2Ly S1aw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLbfNCVTBUd1mtF15BGaXKnrHFOsHlGOX6ZAK+Sro1czClS1L8JQ66lXk5A2heNaQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.87.106 with SMTP id w10mr10572819wjz.151.1468069306028; Sat, 09 Jul 2016 06:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpc66883-mort6-2-0-cust696.19-2.cable.virginm.net. [92.233.126.185]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p126sm7860376wmp.13.2016.07.09.06.01.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 09 Jul 2016 06:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <20160706005825.22318.33162.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1D424B70-9241-453D-85FF-A296A4DCE653@cisco.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <5130903e-f191-09fa-1d17-3f7ac908c38a@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 01:01:44 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1D424B70-9241-453D-85FF-A296A4DCE653@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/4S8p4W_tE5yAo1pmkFuClCliyQc>
Cc: Jen Linkova <furry@google.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bowbakova-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2016 13:01:51 -0000
Dear Bowbakova, This is good stuff. We need SADR on site routers. draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host is listed in the references but not cited in the text. Since it is all about effective use of RFC6724 rule 5.5, I would expect it to carefully referenced in section 4.1. In fact, the behaviour specified by draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host seems to be essential for your mechanism to succeed. You almost say that in section 4.2.2 but again without citing the draft. Worse, section 4.2.4 says: > At the same time Router Advertisements provide a reliable mechanism > to influence source address selection process via PIO, RIO and > default router preferences. As all those options have been > standardized by IETF and are supported by various operating systems, > no changes are required on hosts. That's not true. The changes described in draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host *are* required. Also, routers must be capable of sending PIOs with both L and A bits set to zero. The same error occurs in section 4.6: > 1. no new (non-standard) functionality needs to be implemented on > hosts (except for [RFC4191] support); Section 5.1, shim6. While not disputing your conclusion, I think this is misleading: > We do not consider Shim6 to be a viable solution. It suffers from > the fact that it requires widespread deployment of Shim6 on hosts... It is a two-ended solution and we always knew that it could only be deployed incrementally and opportunistically; that was the plan, not a defect. The real defect is that the Internet is partly opaque to IPv6 extension headers, and therefore even incremental deployment of shim6 is not viable. (The same goes for HIP-based multihoming, which you don't mention.) Finally, it's helpful in site multihoming proposals to indicate whether they meet the goals in RFC 3582. Regards Brian On 07/07/2016 04:33, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > At IETF 94, this working group advised the routing ADs and Routing Working Group that PA multihoming would not work without a source/destination routing solution. This draft was developed in response. Routing Working Group requests v6ops review. > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org> >> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bowbakova-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-00.txt >> Date: July 5, 2016 at 5:58:25 PM PDT >> To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, Jen Linkova <furry@google.com>, "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com>, "J. Linkova" <furry@google.com> >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-bowbakova-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-00.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Fred Baker and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Name: draft-bowbakova-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming >> Revision: 00 >> Title: Enterprise Multihoming using Provider-Assigned Addresses without Network Prefix Translation: Requirements and Solution >> Document date: 2016-07-05 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Pages: 44 >> URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bowbakova-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-00.txt >> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bowbakova-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming/ >> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bowbakova-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-00 >> >> >> Abstract: >> Connecting an enterprise site to multiple ISPs using provider- >> assigned addresses is difficult without the use of some form of >> Network Address Translation (NAT). Much has been written on this >> topic over the last 10 to 15 years, but it still remains a problem >> without a clearly defined or widely implemented solution. Any >> multihoming solution without NAT requires hosts at the site to have >> addresses from each ISP and to select the egress ISP by selecting a >> source address for outgoing packets. It also requires routers at the >> site to take into account those source addresses when forwarding >> packets out towards the ISPs. >> >> This document attempts to define a complete solution to this problem. >> It covers the behavior of routers to forward traffic taking into >> account source address, and it covers the behavior of host to select >> appropriate source addresses. It also covers any possible role that >> routers might play in providing information to hosts to help them >> select appropriate source addresses. In the process of exploring >> potential solutions, this documents also makes explicit requirements >> for how the solution would be expected to behave from the perspective >> of an enterprise site network administrator . >> >> >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] RFC 6724 rule 5.5 implementation guid… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] [homenet] Linux 6724 rule 5.5 (Re: dr… David Lamparter
- Re: [v6ops] Linux 6724 rule 5.5 (Re: draft-bowbak… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] [homenet] Linux 6724 rule 5.5 (Re: dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] [homenet] Linux 6724 rule 5.5 (Re: dr… David Lamparter
- Re: [v6ops] [homenet] Linux 6724 rule 5.5 (Re: dr… David Lamparter
- Re: [v6ops] [homenet] Linux 6724 rule 5.5 (Re: dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Linux 6724 rule 5.5 (Re: draft-bowbak… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Linux 6724 rule 5.5 (Re: draft-bowbak… David Lamparter
- Re: [v6ops] Linux 6724 rule 5.5 (Re: draft-bowbak… Brian E Carpenter
- [v6ops] Linux 6724 rule 5.5 (Re: draft-bowbakova-… David Lamparter
- Re: [v6ops] RFC 6724 rule 5.5 implementation guid… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [v6ops] RFC 6724 rule 5.5 implementation guid… Hemant Singh
- Re: [v6ops] RFC 6724 rule 5.5 implementation guid… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] RFC 6724 rule 5.5 implementation guid… Hemant Singh
- Re: [v6ops] RFC 6724 rule 5.5 implementation guid… Hemant Singh
- [v6ops] RFC 6724 rule 5.5 implementation guidance… David Lamparter
- Re: [v6ops] [homenet] Linux 6724 rule 5.5 (Re: dr… David Lamparter
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Jen Linkova
- [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-b… Fred Baker (fred)