I was not aware of this document. I wonder why this draft was not published as a RFC? On top of that none of the documents e.g. RFC 8028, RFC 8043 and draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming makes a reference to this draft.
Thanks, Shyam On Monday, March 11, 2019, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe this? > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huitema-multi6-hosts-02#section-4.2 > > > > All the best, > > > > Pascal > > > > *From:* rtgwg <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of * shyam bandyopadhyay > *Sent:* lundi 11 mars 2019 17:14 > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Alissa Cooper <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Fwd: I wonder what is being going on > > > > > Dear Area Director, > > Routing Working Group, > > IETF > > > > I am writing to with the intention to resolve the conflict > > between draft-shyam-site-multi and RFC 8028, > > RFC 8043 and draft-ietf-rtgwg-pa-multihoming. > > > > I had raised the issue to IESG and IAB earlier. > > Recently IAB has released a report as a reply to my input. > > I am quoting IAB's response and attaching the file of IAB response > > as well. > > > > IAB report states: > > > > On point 2, the IAB understands from a review of the datatracker that the > documents are still under review for publication by the ISE. The IAB does > not direct the ISE to publish specific documents; the stream’s editorial > independence is its key feature. If the ISE does publish the documents, the > IAB believes it will join a longer conversation on the topic of source > address based routing, and that this would not normally imply any change of > status of RFC 8028 or other documents that form part of that conversation.. > Other relevant work includes RFC 1970, RFC 2461, RFC 4861, RFC 5533, RFC > 7048, and any number of related working group discussions. > > This is just a statement with over simplification > without getting into the details of solution for > site multihoming. > > The term 'source address based routing' is nothing new, > but how it is supposed to be used to solve what kind of > problem is the matter of concern. > > Traditionally routing is based on destination address > and there are multiple protocols like RIP, BGP, OSPF > and each has got its own flavor and use. > > Documents like RFC 1970, RFC 2461, might have used the term > 'source address based routing', but none of them > specified how it is to be used to solve the problem > of site multihoming. Otherwise, what is the use of writing > another document like RFC 8028? > > Let me describe once again how draft-shyam-site-multi > has tackled the issue of routing associated with site > multihoming: > > It is neither completely 'source address based routing' > nor completely 'destination address based routing', > but it is the combination of both. > > 1. To communicate from one host to another within the > same customer site, it is traditional 'destination > address based routing'. > > 2. To communicate from a host of one customer site to a > host of another customer site, it is neither completely > 'source address based routing' nor completely 'destination > address based routing'. To achieve this with only 'source > address based routing' or only with 'destination > address based routing', it requires the routing table > of the entire world to be brought in, which is a > very costly approach. To solve this issue it uses 'source > address based routing' from the source host to the customer > edge router of that customer site and from CE router of > first customer site to the destination host using 'destination > address based routing'. In short it is described as 'default > routing based on source domain of the source address of > the outgoing traffic'. > > This unique solution was first introduced in > section 2.4.1 of draft-shyam-mshn-ipv6-07.txt (from > which draft-shyam-site-multi was derived). RFC 8028 just > elaborates this solution. RFC 8043 and draft-ietf-rtgwg-pa > -multihoming are also based on the same solution. > > I would request IETF to show me a document where > this solution was provided earlier. If any such > document exists, I withdraw everything that I claim. > Otherwise, I would request IETF to revoke RFC 8028, > RFC 8043 and draft-ietf-rtgwg-pa-multihoming. They can > be reproduced by making a reference to > draft-shyam-site-multi showing what they are trying to > achieve on top of whatever has already been stated in > draft-shyam-site-multi. This is how contribution of > the contributors of RFC 8028, RFC 8043 > and draft-ietf-rtgwg-pa-multihoming will be properly > evaluated. > > Thanks and regards, > > Shyam > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Alissa Cooper* <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:05 AM > Subject: Re: I wonder what is being going on > To: shyam bandyopadhyay <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]>, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]>, > <[email protected] <[email protected]>> > > > > Hi Shyam, > > Please direct your comments to [email protected]. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > On Feb 25, 2019, at 8:27 PM, shyam bandyopadhyay <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Alissa, > > > > I am writing to you as I am not fully > > aware of the process of publication of a RFC. > > > > There was a last call review date on 02-19-2019 for > > draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming. > > > > I have said many times earlier that the > > basic principle based on which RFC 8028, RFC 8043 > > and draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming > > are written, i. e. "default routing based on > > source address of outgoing packets" was first > > introduced on draft-shyam-site-multi. > > > > I had written earlier to AD Mr. Martin Vigoureux that > > draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming > > should make a reference to draft-shyam-site-multi > > with an illustration what it is being trying to > > achieve on top of whatever has already been stated on > > draft-shyam-site-multi. > > > > Output of the review from Mr. Nicolai Leymann > > shows no major or minor issues found and the > > draft can be published with some minor editing. > > > > I get a feel that Mr. Nicolai Leymann is not > > aware of the existence of draft-shyam-site-multi. > > > > So, I would request the reviewer to go through > > draft-shyam-site-multi and suggest necessary changes > > required based on my input. > > > > By the way, IETF should consider publishing > > draft-shyam-site-multi prior to publishing > > documents that are dependent on draft-shyam-site-multi. > > > > Thanks and regards, > > Shyam >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
