Hi Magnus, On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:25 PM Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > Regarding Section 7.3 and Section 1 paragraph: > A possible addition here either in the above paragraph or at least in Section > 7.3 that deploying enterprise PA based multi-homing solution actually benefits > the usage of multi-path protocols as this ensures that the MP capable > transport > protocol get a well defined handle to something that likely lead to path > diversity. So from my perspective, a working well enough PA based multi-homing > solution benefits the deployment of multi-path protocols which in its turn > makes the PA based multi-homing work even better than NATed or PI based ones.
The section 6 of the -09 says that 'However the mechanism proposed in this document attempts to ensure that the subset of source addresses available for applications and upper-layer protocols is selected with the up-to-date network state in mind.' I guess it's close to what you are saying - that the solution we propose would provide the multi-path protocols with the signal what addresses could be used. Or would you like to see more text on this topic? Thanks! -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
