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.