Hi Magnus, On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 6:24 PM Magnus Westerlund <[email protected]> wrote: > It was a non-blocking comment, and from the perspective of how the > document is written I guess it is not at all necessary to do any > changes. From my perspective it is a relevant observation that although > multipath is not a solution for the multihoming a network, multihoming > with provider addresses is a benefit to multihoming protocols. Which > indicates that if this should be added it is likely in the introduction > section or not at all. Your call.
I've updated Section 8.3 (Multipath Transport) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-10#section-8.3 with the following text: "On the other hand PA-based multihoming could provide additional benefits for multipath protocol, should those protocols be deployed in the network. Multipath protocols could leverage source address selection to achieve maximum path diversity (and potentially improved performance). Therefore deploying multipath protocols could not be considered as an alternative to the approach proposed in this document. Instead both solutions complement each other so deploying multipath protocols in PA-based multihomed network proves mutually beneficial". Thanks for your suggestion! -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
