Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 08:11:52 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a question basically on section 5.3, however, maybe I'm misunderstanding
something or there is an open aspect here: If I have selected one IP address
and then open a TCP connection and during using this TCP connection the
connection to the selected ISP fails, my expected behaviour from a multi-homed
network would have been that my traffic is simply rerouted to the other ISP.
However, all solutions discussed in sec 5.3. assume that the endpoint will
switch its IP address. In case of TCP, which is not migration-capable, as
indicated by the TSV-ART reviewer (Thanks Michael!), this would mean that I
have to open a new TCP connection and start over again. That doesn't see
optimal. Should this be considered?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I was also wondering about the question Alvaro raised in point B. I mean even
if unscoped forwarding is used for internal traffic, this would probably still
prevent spoofing, however, it doesn't seem correctly that unscoped forwarding
table are not needed anymore.

Nit:
Sec 6 s/This document defines a way for network/This document defines a way for
networks/ or
          s/This document defines a way for network/This document defines a way
          for the network/

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:25:02 +0200

Hi Mirja,

> my expected behaviour from a multi-homed

That expectations can be addressed today with PI address blocks or by use
of third party virtual PA address anchor nodes (think as example LISP
RTRs). This proposal is about use of PA blocks. I asked this question long
time ago and got answer that PI IPv6 blocks are not easily accessible. One
would hope v6 would at least solve that issue.

With PA addresses unfortunately your TCP will fail resulting in need to
re-establish the session I am afraid. One more reason to think about QUIC
...

Thx,
R.

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 5:12 PM Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>