Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-07
review-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-07-rtgdir-lc-leymann-2019-02-22-00

Hi,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-07
Reviewer: Nicolai Leymann
Review Date: 19/02/19
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Informational
Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
considered prior to publication. Comments: The draft is in good shape and
describes a real world problem. The problem description is clear as well as the
solution to.

As a general remark the interesting questions remains if typical enterprise
networks will move to one of the solutions described in the draft of if they
will stay with a more "classical" approach like IPv6 prefix translation
(because it's more in line with their IPv4 scenario). I agree that any type of
address translation causes problems but many enterprises are concerned about
internal IP addresses exposed to the external world.

Section 3:
  There might be also some expectations regarding convergence times if one of
  the SER fails. Some mechanisms (e.g. pure prefix translations) will have no
  relevance/impact on other routers and hosts in the enterprise networks
  whereas with more complex mechanisms it might take longer (e.g. to renumber
  or make sure that all systems are using the new source address).

Major Issues:
"No major issues found."

Minor Issues:
"No minor issues found."

Nits:
- I am always confused if BCPs are referenced but never explicitly listed with
a related tag
  in the list of references. But I guess that's a general problem :)
- Document title and the introduction are IP version agnostic (reading the
introduction it can be
  assumed that the solution is valid for IPv4 and IPv6, but the document only
  addresses IPv6).
- The need for connection re-establishment depends also on the protocol (TCP
vs. QUIC).

Regards
Nic