I have read the draft and don't see how it advances Homenet.
IMHO If an MSP wants to deploy some tunnel brokers on the Internet to
terminate what boils down to a pair of GRE tunnels, they can do so
without the IETF providing any new standards work, and it'll all work
just fine.
I'd prefer it if people concentrated on
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-04.txt
regards,
RayH
Damien Saucez wrote:
Curtis,
Thank you for the comments.
Our target in this document is to raise the question of multihoming
in personal and/or small/medium enterprise networks, so for now
we were not looking at the mobile device such as smartphones
connected to both 4g and wifi (for this, the multihoming solution
must be implemented directly on the device). We believe that
SOHO would be interested being multihomed but can't afford the
cost of operating multihoming themselves. This is why we suggest
the MSP which is a way to outsource multihoming complexity.
Now, let's go to the technical part. We didn't want to provide
solution so far but we had in mind the following:
1. traffic is tunnelled between the network and the MSP.
2. addresses assigned to devices in the network belong to
the MSP (or at least are advertised by the MSP in BGP) and
then they never change.
3. the MSP box has one "wire" (possibly vie wifi or 3/4G) per
ISP to which the network is connected and each NIC connected
to this "wire" receives addresses dynamically.
Putting these three points together, it means that the gw are
invisible to the devices in the network, that addresses of devices
never change during communications and that traffic always go
through the MSP (even though it is possible to avoid this).
I agree that there is no such thing as the MSP so far, but there
is a bunch of very big service providers that exist today, that are
peering with virtually every significant network and that would
certainly be happy to be the "first hop" for all the communications.
Thank you,
Damien Saucez
On 01 Oct 2012, at 03:21, Curtis Villamizar<cur...@occnc.com> wrote:
In message<08880dcf-fec8-4b52-8db4-0300ac1ec...@ericsson.com>
Wassim Haddad writes:
Dear all,
We have submitted a problem statement for multihoming in homenet.
Comments appreciated!
Regards,
Wassim H.
Wassim,
You are proposing a solution, not submitting a problem statement.
A problem with your solution is that the most common multihoming is
the mobile device having IP access through both WiFi (via DSL or cable
or hotspot) and 4G mobile. In this case the "MSP middlebox" you
propose would have to be inside the mobile device, which is already
both one of the gateways and the end host.
Another problem is the current non-existance of a Multihoming Service
Provider (MSP)" somewhere out "in the cloud" to replace the source
address of packets.
No where in your document does the principle issue with multihoming
get addressed. The source address used by the host must be chosen
somehow by the host or replaced somewhere. The function of the "MSP
middlebox" as described is only to redirect outgoing packets. If the
source address reflect going through ISP2, and that link goes away,
then the packets can now go out through ISP1 but the problem of using
the wrong source address remains.
If the source address is somehow provided by the MSP, then the traffic
has to be tunnelled from MSP middlebox to MSP as might be implied by
the last paragraph in section 4 where it says "In addition, if Gw1 and
Gw2 provide addresses by the mean of DHCPv6 or RA, addresses at the
MSPMB will be configured automatically as well". The word "address"
barely appears in the draft except for the prior statement and one in
the intro saying why Shim6 or MPTCP should not be used. The word
"tunnel" doesn't appear at all. The word "source" (as in "source
address") doesn't appear at all.
So you don't seem to be proposing a viable solution or perhaps you had
something to do with tunnelling in mind that you didn't describe at
all clearly.
Curtis
Begin forwarded message:
From: "internet-dra...@ietf.org"<internet-dra...@ietf.org>
Subject: I-D Action: draft-haddad-homenet-multihomed-00.txt
Date: September 25, 2012 10:55:38 AM PDT
To: "i-d-annou...@ietf.org"<i-d-annou...@ietf.org>
Reply-To: "internet-dra...@ietf.org"<internet-dra...@ietf.org>
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : Multihoming in Homenet
Author(s) : Wassim Haddad
Damien Saucez
Joel Halpern
Filename : draft-haddad-homenet-multihomed-00.txt
Pages : 7
Date : 2012-09-25
Abstract:
So far, multihoming in Homenet must be supported by the hosts as
there is no mean to use simultaneously the different Internet Service
Providers of the "Homenet" without risking flow disruption. In this
memo, we describe the problem statement for multihoming in Homenet.
We also propose a high level solution that answers this particular
problem.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haddad-homenet-multihomed
There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-haddad-homenet-multihomed-00
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
