IMHO, Src-dst routing could be seen as a band-aid fix for current IP routing, just like flow-spec/acl/lsa extension. It can not solve all problems that have existed for a long time, such as ID/LOC separation. But it is an evolutionary solution that can be practically used in current IP model.
Shu Yang > -----原始邮件-----发件人:"David Lamparter" > <[email protected]>发送时间:2022-07-29 00:05:43 (星期五)收件人:"Tony Li" > <[email protected]>抄送:"Jen Linkova" <[email protected]>, "Routing WG" > <[email protected]>, "David Lamparter" <[email protected]>, > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]主题:Re: > draft-llsyang-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-00 > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 08:02:18AM -0700, Tony Li wrote: > > Thank you for re-opening this. > > > > I will point out that what you’re really hitting on is the known > > architectural deficiency of IP: how does a multi-homed network deal > > with multiple locators? We’ve discussed this to death previously and > > effectively came to the conclusion that we didn’t want to change the > > architecture. > > The architecture is indeed deficient in dealing with multiple locators > for one identifier; I would argue that this draft is the result of > accepting that premise, accepting the fact that multiple *identifiers* > will be used in parallel, and having the network deal with that. > > > What’s changed? Are we now open to changing the architecture? > > Depends on what exactly you're referring to with "architecture". This > isn't an attempt to make multiple locators work for a single identifier. > If that worked (widely), we wouldn't need dst-src-routing. > > > Routing based on source address is a band-aid fix for the specific > > symptoms. I think that if we are open to making changes, we should > > not assume that routing based on source address is the solution, > > It might be a band-aid fix for general symptoms - what it is intended to > be the solution for is correctly routing "multi-prefixed" (a specific > kind of multihomed) networks. > > > and that this draft we be better served by focusing on highlighting > > the architectural issue and should avoid talking about solutions. > > I think that happened in rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming (though it does > verge into solutions too), which is now RFC 8678. > > Cheers, > > > -David > > > P.S.: as far as implementations are concerned, the first time > dst-src-routing popped up in the wild was January of 1998, when RTA_SRC > got introduced in Linux 2.1.79: (it's "Pedro's subtree work") > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/history/history.git/tree/net/ipv6/route.c?h=2.1.79#n832 _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
