IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] AD review of MPVD Architecture ***feedback needed from MIF working group participants ***

Dmitry Anipko <dmitry.anipko@gmail.com> Thu, 15 January 2015 05:41 UTC

Return-Path: <dmitry.anipko@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494071B2AF9 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:41:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bSJJPRT8Kmm7 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:41:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com (mail-wi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A15CA1B2AF7 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:41:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id z2so6952349wiv.3 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:41:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=GU20/e/MwyYmFYrinJLh1UowFD67sXX6tZg6qtIxAps=; b=rj2Sz9RfJEeJCu1Nh0Vt4QSME2jPf/D90m1cQs9xf2xYQ0XXfrQOGanVtyEFsfM6N8 hR0Tvz+ofczYYHgbTaRZy6Jf2vYoEaSAtppEQru24U0lh3AgP/Vy2hb4wEbG1ZAYDcu7 o2ty7czbQVBaQoR8diPW3vK/OSLtfJ31V2DoRrwRIO1/TGe55TAQW1CHQSlgWpz6HQ6m ItGXu1q32Bx6oVZK1BOPe6SrMiro5OvEju5NwivhfToGrn6tfJ2/AEOf/2gLGgWp3N5O hp3tQ6QAM19iFNEEv4HL0xtPkvoz2Hml1zuLXrwXPK5knN11yna9VN4890HrhGMSOHUv uU8g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.207.66 with SMTP id lu2mr15326476wic.13.1421300512426; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:41:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.101.70 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:41:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <931A7C39-6DAE-43C0-BF2E-3B6DC08F1F5A@nominum.com>
References: <9071C858-BBCA-483C-94CD-E7C2584980F0@nominum.com> <CACurXJhq5PyogN=J-kHBjqiNO1VTFsm_F9e-YdK+Q9Zqy_pKjw@mail.gmail.com> <27E34197-0DCA-4328-98A8-CD5C1A3534A9@nominum.com> <CACurXJgLxXBud27b+CnQNkrXBJkunJ_x5J7iKa8A3+OsmMHJBQ@mail.gmail.com> <931A7C39-6DAE-43C0-BF2E-3B6DC08F1F5A@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:41:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CACurXJjyCvsoX-QRLFfucKyahGK0SsbxMV28FuW_NGKiO+VhnQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dmitry Anipko <dmitry.anipko@gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3d8ee299010050caa50db"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/-cOv-8GPGi3eXaHlfKkFhpW8C4A>
Cc: "mif@ietf.org List" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] AD review of MPVD Architecture ***feedback needed from MIF working group participants ***
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 05:41:56 -0000

>> I think this should just be taken out of the architecture and left as
future work when someone is enthusiastic and has a use case for it.

Thanks Ted. If there are no other inputs by end of Friday, I will remove
the respective text from the draft.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> On Jan 13, 2015, at 11:17 PM, Dmitry Anipko <dmitry.anipko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > My best recollection is that the contributors believed that there may be
> a need to deploy multiple PVDs, applicable to different nodes/node groups,
> and hence to avoid having to do broadcast propagation of all of those, a
> node could have an ability to specify which ones the node is capable to
> understand.
>
> That sounds highly problematic.   How does the node know which pvds to
> list for a particular network?   What about the privacy implications?   I
> think this should just be taken out of the architecture and left as future
> work when someone is enthusiastic and has a use case for it.
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email