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

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

Brian, Lorenzo,

Thanks a lot for the feedback.
It's all makes sense, I'm going to post an updated version of the
draft before the end of the week to address your comments, stay tuned!

NPTv6 will be still mentioned - I believe the draft should explain why
it's not a good option. From my experience almost every discussion
about v6 multihoming starts with 'we can just do NPTv6, can't we?', so
it's a topic worth discussing.

Actually there is one more thing about address/prefix
translation....we are seeing more and more work to make
host/applications path-aware so they could make educated decisions
about available paths and choose between them. Selecting the source
address might be one of the possible mechanisms path-aware hosts use.
Taking multiple addresses (with different properties) from a host and
replacing them with ULAs takes some control away from hosts and might
be considered as a step backward.


On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> >> 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?
>
>
> Indeed. If you mention NPTv6 at all, I would just say it's not a solution
> because it breaks end-to-end connectivity.



-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry