Subject: RE: draft remarks

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:35:32 +0300

Hi Elliot,

> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > - are there any questions about how site policy can be applied? (where 
> > "policy" has a big overlap with "traffic engineering"
> 
> You mean like access-lists?  There are specific questions 
> regarding TE.
> 
> 4.2  Does your solution impact existing traffic engineering methods,
>      such as MPLS-TE?
> 
>     Traffic engineering allows for source-based traffic aggregation to a
>     particular destination.  How will your mechanism interact with such
>     existing methods?

I'd hesitate explicitly calling out MPLS-TE - there are otherways to
'manage' a network.  I'd make it more general:

 4.2  Does your solution impact existing network management tools and techniques?
 
     Traffic engineering allows for source-based traffic aggregation to a
     particular destination.  How will your mechanism interact with such
     existing methods?  How will your mechanisms interact with existing 
     network management tools?

> > - I would like to see a new question: "Is it possible to 
> implement the 
> > solution in middleboxes?
> 
> 3.10  Middlbox interactions
> 
>     What are the implications for firewalls?  What are the interactions
>     with NAT?  What are the interactions with web caches? What
>     complications are introduced with your solution?  For instance, are
>     there implication for ingress filters?  If so, what are they?

add:
	What are the implications for proxies?
 
John

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:55:46 +0200

>  4.2  Does your solution impact existing network management tools and 

[...]

> 	What are the implications for proxies?

Hm, this way the document is quickly becoming "list the way your 
solution interacts with RFCs 1 - 3800". The value of this document is 
that it reminds authors of issues that may be pertinent to their 
solution. In order to do this, it's important to offer a rationale for 
including a question. I see no reason why multi-address multihoming 
would impact network management or proxies. If you do, it would be good 
to say why, so authors can determine whether your concerns are 
warrented.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:07:35 +0200

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> solution interacts with RFCs 1 - 3800". 

Right.  I agree.  We can't predict all pitfalls, but for instance, to 
tie into another message from Iljitsch, perhaps we should point out that 
if a mechanism uses some nifty hack on addressing and someone is doing 
MPLS-TE based on source address, you could have a problem.  On the other 
hand, I'm also perfectly happy removing the question in its entirety.

Eliot