[mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF

GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> Thu, 31 January 2013 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <phdgang@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA2221F86FB for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:56:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ToYry6YlYUCS for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:56:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qe0-f43.google.com (mail-qe0-f43.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10EEF21F86F4 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:56:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qe0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 3so562985qeb.2 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:56:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=hOQl2Rnk2axYmooLg6/gpL+FeWFBdDWK6aMQFevSk7c=; b=wZZrR9+P+kebNLrcCAUfN84VC22dtxYS543KlxnmzvGHU396M8GSuD9qDWcDrrRRdq 7yASlg+vI7NGCQF+Kg0XFQcWcg0stCXRDj2zjO7jYYzKqz50rR4ipfegfCisKE2aEyuF sC40l/W5zTfDYT1O1d16Fay86uizdvF/GVHBnCsZnLyj46TO2IUpHZngYiu9mxqtm461 uFnH4PF5LryWL1NBm1ddG081LpDLuIAUlQK1yFWL+EjooLxQdxEuM3JsKQ+oc/AtNjMN rcqoI3yyTH66SpE/FRojgBoE8npPgKYd+gHbfjXZVlAq/wHQ+4LtBmEBI+eBMQXNuuuq a4nQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id fx8mr7822766qab.66.1359615404468; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:56:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:56:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:56:44 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM+vMERak2vAoYFeSLRep2xjpm480qPjutyv4-tV=KtU0XO=fw@mail.gmail.com>
From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
To: mif <mif@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension <draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 31 Jan 2013 06:56:45 -0000

Hello all,

We would like to follow up the discussions on last IETF meeting.
We are asked to add the texts clarifying DNS selections using HE-MIF.
With the minutes and my memory, there are two cases HE-MIF failed to
help if DNS queries are sent out on multiple interfaces in parallel

Case 1: Mismatch of DNS answers with specific provisioning domain

A DNS answer may be only valid on a specific provisioning domain, but
HE-MIF may not be aware of that mapping because DNS answers may not be
kept with the provisioning from which the answer comes.

The thing would become worse if asking internal name with public
address response or asking public name with private address answers

Case 2: Some FQDNs can be resolvable only by sending queries to the
right server (e.g., intranet services). Otherwise, a response with
NXDOMAIN is replied.
HE-MIF would treat the DNS server with fast response as optimal only
if there is valid response.
That may cause chaos, since NXDOMAIN doesn't provide useful information.

Therefore, RFC6731 should be recommended as the proper solution for
DNS selections.

We are not sure if there is anything missing.
Authors would like to ask your kind check and comments. We will update
the draft accordingly if there are no further comments.

Best Regards