[59792] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: draft-savola-bcp38-multihoming-update-nn.txt
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barry Raveendran Greene)
Sun Jul 20 11:43:16 2003
Reply-To: <bgreene@cisco.com>
From: "Barry Raveendran Greene" <bgreene@cisco.com>
To: "'Fred Baker'" <fred@cisco.com>, <nanog@nanog.org>
Cc: "'Pekka Savola'" <pekkas@netcore.fi>,
"'Sue Joiner'" <smj@merit.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:42:25 -0700
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030720080038.050415e0@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
A quick run through show some section which are not correct and do not =
match
some of the operational practice where BCP 38 is applied. I would offer =
to
go off with Pekka and re-work some of these sections.=20
The fact is that BCP 38 deployment is on the rise - including BCP 38
techniques with multihomed customers where traffic is asymmetrical. So =
this
document needs to detail the techniques that are working, point out the
misconceptions, and recommend a conservative deployment path for =
providers
and customers.=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf =
Of
> Fred Baker
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 11:01 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Cc: Pekka Savola; Sue Joiner
> Subject: draft-savola-bcp38-multihoming-update-nn.txt
>=20
>=20
> Pekka and I have been discussing the impact of ingress filters on
> multihomed networks - which may be ISPs or edge networks, and may have =
an
> arbitrary number of upstream ISPs.
>=20
> We wonder what your thoughts might be regarding
> =
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-savola-bcp38-multihoming-update=
-
> 00.txt.
> With your concurrence, we would like to recommend it for BCP status, =
as an
> update to BCP 38. Our questions are at two levels: philosophical and =
at
> the
> detail level. If you have significant comments calling for a change of
> text, it would help us if you proposed text.
