(back from vacation finally, sorry for the delayed response) Robert, Olivier,
First of all, thank you for the comments. On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Also please note that references in the draft need review and update. > > Example: missing ref to RFC8041 .. draft is still listing: > > [I-D.ietf-mptcp-experience] > Bonaventure, O., Paasch, C., and G. Detal, "Use Cases and > Operational Experience with Multipath TCP", draft-ietf- > mptcp-experience-07 (work in progress), October 2016. Noted, will be fixed. > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Olivier > Bonaventure<[email protected]> wrote: >> The document discusses a range of solutions to enable legacy hosts to >> select the right source address to use to reach a given destination. >> However, I think that it complety ignores a very clean and efficient >> solution to the multihoming problem : using multipath transport. Let me clarify why Section4 discusses SLAAC/DHCP/ICMP instead of multipath transport. I totally agree that if all hosts were using path-aware transports only, it would have solved the problem discussed in the Section 4 of the draft. However it means that enterprises can not have IPv6 multihoming until almost all their traffic is over those path-aware transport protocols and I have some concerns re: when it's going to happen. Point taken, the document should mention multipath transport and explain why we are looking for lower-level solution. -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
