Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-01.txt

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> [[Dusan]] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-07 makes Rule 5.5 SHOULD requirement:
> "[RFC8028]
>    updates rule 5.5 from [RFC6724]; implementations SHOULD implement
>    this rule."
>
> That does not mean there are not end points that don't benefit from Rule 5.5. If both Prf and Rule 5.5 are implemented, the endpoints will benefit from Prf preference sent from the router.

Sure. There is draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming which
discusses in details multihoming for networks, where hosts support
Rule 5.5.
However there is a demand to provide multihoming for networks where
not all endpoints support rule 5.5. The general solution described in
draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming has some limitations in
those case. So another document (this one) was written and explicitly
scoped to very specific use case:

1) Internet access only;
2) Internet uplinks are used in either 'Active/Backup' or load sharing
(no traffic engineering) modes;
3) hosts are not expected to support rule 5.5 (== the documented
solution should work for hosts which do not support it).

So I'm not sure I understand why do you insist on expanding the scope
of this document to the scope covered by
draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming.
Doing so will violate the requirement #3 above.