[RTG-DIR] review of draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-07

Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net> Thu, 04 August 2016 01:30 UTC

From: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
To: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@juniper.net>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana@cisco.com)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: review of draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-07
Thread-Index: AdHtl31nW9cBE5NwRGi5frR6U2X/NA==
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 01:29:56 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR05MB2829FAE46E5FE1FE8D64AB48A9070@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Aug 2016 01:29:56.6446 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR05MB2706
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/pfBfWY15SCeRpz31tDujbYcGUAk>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] review of draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-07
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 01:30:06 -0000

The following is a review of draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-07, with an emphasis on aspects related to the Routing Area.

draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-07
Title: Routing packets from hosts in a multi-prefix network

Major issue 1)
It does not seem appropriate for a document from 6man in the Internet Area to make a normative statement about what routing protocols should implement.

The Routing Area is actively addressing routing aspects of PA multi-homing, and I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing may eventually be part of a solution, but it is premature to bless that approach, especially in this document.

-----
Existing text:
2.2. Expectations of multihomed networks

The direct implication of Section 2.1 is that, if the network uses a
routing protocol, the routing protocols used in multihomed networks
SHOULD implement source-prefix based egress routing, for example as
described in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing].
------
Proposed text:
2.2. Expectations of multihomed networks

In a multihomed network, when a router advertises a PIO to a host,
the host should expect that when it sends a packet to that router with a source
-----

The current title of this draft could be taken to mean that this draft has a broader scope than it does.
A more accurate title might be:
"First-hop router selection by hosts in a multi-prefix network"
address corresponding to that PIO, the packet will get routed to the correct ISP.

=====
Major issue 2)
The text in Section 3.1 and 3.2 should be made clearer, so that an implementer knows what exactly is being modified.

2a) These sections are intended to modify how hosts should interpret PIOs and RIOs advertised by routers in selecting the first-hop router to send a given packet to. However, it is unclear how a host should take into account the Default Router Preference value in selecting the first hop. For example, suppose a host receives PIO for source prefix A from router 1 with Default Router Preference set to Low, and it receives PIO for source prefix B from router 2 with Default Router Preference set to High. It is unclear what first-hop router the host should use when sending a packet with source address in prefix A in this case. Does the matching source prefix or the higher Default Router Preference take precedence?

2b) The abstract and header material say that draft is intended to update RFC4861. The text in these sections should be more explicit about the exact text in RFC4861 that needs to be updated.

2c) This draft also seems to be updating RFC4191. If so, that should be explicitly stated, and this draft should make it clear what text in RFC4191 needs to be modified. RFC4191 defines three types of hosts (A, B, and C). Does this update apply to all of the host types?

Other issues:
=============
Abstract:

Current text:
This host behavior may interact with source address
selection in a given implementation, but logically follows it.

I find this sentence confusing.

Proposed text:
Host behavior in choosing a first-hop router may interact with
source address selection in a given implementation. However,
the selection of the source address for a packet is done before
the first-hop router for that packet is chosen.
==============

Section 2.1 has the following text:

In some circumstances both L and A might be zero. If SLAAC is not
wanted (A=0) and there is no reason to announce an on-link prefix
(L=0), a PIO SHOULD be sent to inform hosts that the prefix is
source-routed by the router in question.

I don't think that sending a PIO should be interpreted by the host to mean that "the prefix is source-routed by the router in question". The reason for the router to make the PIO advertisement is so that the host uses that router as its first hop for packets with a source address in the PIO prefix. I don't think we want the host to assume any more than that.

Proposed text:
In some circumstances both L and A might be zero. If SLAAC is not
wanted (A=0) and there is no reason to announce an on-link prefix
(L=0), a PIO SHOULD be sent to inform hosts that they should use the
Router in question as the first-hop for packets with source addresses
in the PIO prefix.

Re: [RTG-DIR] review of draft-ietf-6man-multi-hom… Chris Bowers
Re: [RTG-DIR] review of draft-ietf-6man-multi-hom… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [RTG-DIR] review of draft-ietf-6man-multi-hom… Suresh Krishnan
Re: [RTG-DIR] review of draft-ietf-6man-multi-hom… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
[RTG-DIR] review of draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-h… Chris Bowers