Architectural Approaches to Multi-homing for IPv6
draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-04
Yes
(David Kessens)
No Objection
(Bert Wijnen)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Sam Hartman)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
David Kessens Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-02-12)
Unknown
My Discuss issues were handled well. The draft has a summary of the changes reviewed (which will disappear from the RFC version): Section 5.1 Multi-Homing: Routing Added text relating to the risks to transport layer surviveability when routing convergence gnerates unstable temporary path states, and takes an indeterminate time to complete. [For Ted's Comment; good new material] Section 6.3.1 Triggering Locator Switches Added note about different trigger responses being required from different transport sessions, arising from IESG review. Section 7.2 Rehoming Triggers Added questions regarding transport considerations, arising from IESG review.
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-02-03)
Unknown
Reviewed by Michael Patton, Gen-ART Only minor issues found; full review in document comment log.
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-01-20)
Unknown
In the security considerations, the author points to the "Threats relating to IPv6 multi-homing solutions," which is good, but I think that this document should also state the implications of the potential solutions on IP security (IPsec). IPsec is discussed very briefly in section 6.3.3, but this is not the only place concerns arise.
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-01-18)
Unknown
Section 5.1 says: This approach generally meets all the goals for multi-homing approaches with one notable exception: scalability. Each site that multi-homes in this fashion adds a further entry in the global inter-domain routing table. Within the constraints of current routing and forwarding technologies it is not clearly evident that this approach can scale to encompass a population of multi-homed sites of the order of, for example, 10**7 such sites. The implication here is that this would add a similar number of unique prefixes into the inter-domain routing environment, which in turn would add to the storage and computational load imposed on inter-domain routing elements within the network. This scale of additional load is not supportable within the current capabilities of the IPv4 global Internet, nor is it clear at present that the routing capabilities of the entire network could be expanded to manage this load in a cost-effective fashion, within the bounds of the current inter- domain routing protocol architecture. I think transport-layer survivability may not be met here, given the likely propagation times. In general, I think this statement above: The environment of multi-homing is one that is intended to provide sufficient support to local hosts so as to allow local hosts to exchange IP packets with remote hosts, such that this exchange of packets is to be transparently supported across dynamic changes in connectivity. captures the problem with using Routing well--propagation delay is such that dynamic changes in connectivity cannot be handled by the routing system with any degree of reliability. For 6.3.1, where would something like SIP's UPDATE command fall? Is this a transport layer trigger, or an application-layer trigger?
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-02-03)
Unknown
> The E ndpoint Identity Protocol Stack Element refers to an added > typo/space > considered. In the Internet Protocol architecture the LLP of the s/the/, the/ > achieve a form of traffic engineering, support for particularl Run entire document through spell? > The major characteristic of this scenario is that the address space > used by, and advertised as reachable by, ISP A is distinct from the > address space used by ISP B. At some point, the use of "this scenario" becomes unclear. I don't understand where the above comes from under "this scenario". Indeed, it might be better to call this "simple scenario" or "generic scenario" (or something) and use that throughout rather than "this", which is more ambigious. > inter- domain routing protocol architecture. space > outer level locator packet header is wrapped around the packet as it s/outer level/outer-level/