Re: [v6ops] RTGWG last call draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-03

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 14 April 2018 21:03 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 9D96E12702E; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 14:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 RpZu0gzwR60n; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 14:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl0-x229.google.com (mail-pl0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) (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 1BB2E1250B8; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 14:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl0-x229.google.com with SMTP id x4-v6so7913447pln.7; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 14:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gWc64teT2tD4ltrm4e2ot51P1s5npcF59fy9eGRkq2c=; b=L+qXi6m84eDj1B2K7sqvy2qEc891c2IBu4l0xFCYs+FNh6nyblUMEkcz9xSCJDqhc6 DioFOWcMtIJON8lZba0A1FD+OwCUzi2r8vCgc4XoWOvFDGoXpw7syXQ35F5H2D3fANgg 7fwQX18P/M6fh5zOxbDda9nos1oSsjqjBr+BY49g3/AGgABKOoatCdkAV5/AtnLxT8WB z2mcg8NP285cRFlH2SJ7HGDeKKvFPbyvkNck2wEG6pdxoJx5aQrQ40a3dsYHMh7rEUFH V7skr8g0NDrHHfiWtI9SMGF716uvirwdteZP+7cIfV2rjzMk134+ZoiQ2vfVCwJMgTUX ddfA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gWc64teT2tD4ltrm4e2ot51P1s5npcF59fy9eGRkq2c=; b=asMWQNAxYKYLg7ZIjHKvk6GmJMcRdGa/mCHh07MllyHIUL1fQbG4jZYB+Sox9TSkcY 10rbtcMRzL88ZzJNRCKXckZHRcVdYOVB3aZqkx7Tvyl8uxgFRHNVUk1stQKRFijal7A/ FNVOUFuP1gIVg8edMk921fdxrw3+e2TGKAImxBusE+8NdmzWhtk+3Jh+8xhJ5fjsRpAP TXnhlQpGLPAOITWnwobs2l9mOX66IbC/3JnchOVMyksKNVZLlKHg5GjyUdiCefpgMtvl Y3Jy5XonkLtXxKhAVmKsmFYPId5jxwdT0U5AsTbX3a87OJ5SScnIvARfvGf3gxPpBMpR keMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tA3P+weerZbyjsiACHNi0WkEH1N8hQSCEkdKHAOSHB/xm9gmi5h dHXup6rb+gOcTmBcOOZGiPHWhQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48KXFWfp/E5KeLo4FEC7C5+2lsgngof3GzBdAey91oPxn/bYxpUZhPV3JQVSN5+MJXKySHKxg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7d8a:: with SMTP id a10-v6mr9969783plm.268.1523739782404; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 14:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.26] ([118.149.104.115]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j10sm19548284pfj.1.2018.04.14.14.02.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 14 Apr 2018 14:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Brian Carpenter <becarpenter46@gmail.com>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org
References: <CA48FC37-238A-4D87-B2FA-75C763370B6C@gmail.com> <794587A2-46DF-4F2F-86B5-56083D0864A5@gmail.com> <9a3234af-cc1a-1054-b6d1-3baa7ad7ca81@gmail.com> <CAFU7BATKsWS08hL2HeDsCq9YPdnPad1QXPqvEhcqHVba_h63_g@mail.gmail.com> <f635dac8-2e5b-f376-33cb-2354f0576125@gmail.com> <CAFU7BAR9QVStU-KRGoZpda3H9x5J-z6PPf9dxstMpwdTnPEXcg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f8e0a062-ccc0-b835-4995-f2f487600b0b@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 09:02:56 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BAR9QVStU-KRGoZpda3H9x5J-z6PPf9dxstMpwdTnPEXcg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/5VrhJrbARLiCILp_bhitnarAiWs>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RTGWG last call draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-03
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 14 Apr 2018 21:03:06 -0000

This version looks good to me.

Thanks
   Brian

On 14/04/2018 19:42, Jen Linkova wrote:
> The -05 version of the draft has been posted to address comments received.
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-05
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Brian E Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/04/2018 18:15, Jen Linkova wrote:
>>> Brian,
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for reading such a long document and for your comments!
>>>
>>>> Generally I like this draft, but there are a couple of issues IMHO:
>>>>
>>>>> 5.1.  Shim6
>>>> ....>    We do not consider Shim6 to be a viable solution.  It suffers from
>>>>>    the fact that it requires widespread deployment of Shim6 on hosts all
>>>>>    over the Internet before the host at a PA multihomed site sees
>>>>>    significant benefit.  However, there appears to be no motivation for
>>>>>    the vast majority of hosts on the Internet (which are not at PA
>>>>>    multihomed sites) to deploy Shim6.  This may help explain why Shim6
>>>>>    has not been widely implemented.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the chicken-and-egg issue was the main problem with shim6.
>>>> IMHO there were three problems:
>>>> 1) The fact that the Internet is not transparent to shim6 headers;
>>>> 2) The fact that source-address based routing is not readily
>>>> available (sounds familiar?);
>>>> 3) The rather surprising negative reaction to shim6 from many
>>>> ISPs, apparently because they viewed it as a loss of control.
>>>> Those three facts made the incremental deployment model infeasible.
>>>>
>>>> But does it matter? I'd tend to delete the whole paragraph. The
>>>> only fact that matters is the lack of deployment.
>>>
>>> I believe the point here is a particular multihomed enterprise can not
>>> use Shim6 as a solution because Shim6 has to be globally supported
>>> first and it's not happening (as opposed to NAT-PT, for example: if a
>>> given network really wants to use it, it could be enabled and used).
>>> How about I remove the second part of the paragraph, starting from
>>> 'However, there appears to be no motivation.."?
>>
>> Sure. That avoids the discussion, which is an academic question anyway;
>> that fact that Shim6 failed to deploy is enough...
>>
>>>>> 5.2.  IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation
>>>> ....
>>>>>    Until that occurs, NPTv6 should still
>>>>>    be considered a viable option to enable PA multihoming for
>>>>>    enterprises.
>>>>
>>>> Most of this section is not about NPTv6; it's about deployment
>>>> challenges for your main proposal. That's fine and worth explaining.
>>>> However, the real issue is that advocating NPTv6 will delay progress
>>>> on this draft for something that really doesn't belong in the routing
>>>> area. In many peoples' opinion, this is not something the IETF
>>>> should say, and it's definitely contentious.
>>>>
>>>> Much better, IMHO, to simply ignore NPTv6 in this draft, and
>>>> stick to your own knitting.
>>>
>>> So do you think the whole section 5 shall be removed? (the deployment
>>> challenges could be discussed in the separate section)
>>
>> Personally, yes. You know the strength of feelings in the IETF on this
>> issue, which is why NPTv6 is Experimental anyway. So why start a flame
>> war when it's a side-issue for your draft anyway?
>>
>>     Brian
>>
> 
> 
>