RE: draft-savola-bcp38-multihoming-update-nn.txt

["Barry Raveendran Greene" <bgreene () cisco com>]

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. 

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. 



> -----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
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.