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

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-02-19
Requested 2019-01-29
Requested by Martin Vigoureux
Authors Fred Baker, Chris Bowers, Jen Linkova
Draft last updated 2019-02-22
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Nicolai Leymann (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -08 by Michael Tüxen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Nicolai Leymann
State Completed
Review review-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-07-rtgdir-lc-leymann-2019-02-22
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 12)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-02-22

Review
review-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-07-rtgdir-lc-leymann-2019-02-22

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