Jen,
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.
I think that it is worth to document what can be done today with single
path transport and what will become possible with multipath transport.
Multipath transport makes the multihoming problem much simpler from a
network viewpoint. With Multipath TCP and soon Multipath QUIC, we cannot
ignore the benefits that multipath will bring.
I'm ready to contribute text about multipath or propose a separate
document if you believe that it would be better to document today's
(single path) approach in one document and a longer term (multipath) in
a separate document.
Olivier
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
