Hi Robert, Thanks for you quick reply. Please see also my reply to Jen’s mail.
Mirja > On 26. Jun 2019, at 18:25, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mirja, > > > my expected behaviour from a multi-homed > > network would have been that my traffic is > > simply rerouted to the other ISP. > > 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 protected]> wrote: > 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/ > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
