about draft-kim-bgp-community-site-multihoming-00

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Hi,

I had a very brief look at the document 
draft-kim-bgp-community-site-multihoming-00:

        An Application of the BGP Extended Community Attribute for
                     Distributed IPv6 Site Multihoming

.. however, it introduces a number of big problems:

 1) it does not outright spell out which problems it tries to solve, and
it does not really explain why these things are actual problems in RFC
3178 (the site exit routers RFC).  Most of these seem to be confusing,
misguided or wrong to begin with, making it difficult to assess whether 
the mechanism itself is needed or not, or based on the right assumptions.  
These definitely need to be spelled out more.

 2) a new "multihoming community" is introduced which appears to be
totally bogus, trying to replace a BGP route advertisement with an option
which conveys where to forward the packets instead (unless I misunderstood
something)

 3) these models depend on the operation of rest of the internet for 
multihoming.  What incentive would they have to do anything like that?

 4) use of this kind of special community has significant security 
concerns, despite what's described in the memo.  Couldn't anyone hijack 
anyone else's traffic by adding this community to any prefix?

In short, I think the document needs a lot more clarity on what it's
trying to achive and how.  But in the end, I believe (unless I
misunderstood something about the design choices) there will probably be
only little usefulness.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings