[mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch

GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> Thu, 12 June 2014 01:56 UTC

Return-Path: <phdgang@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 0E1011B2971 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 oqkQQlHmNbr1 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22f.google.com (mail-qc0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A40011B296C for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id i8so965948qcq.34 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=jbkiohD1KuLxFZZsijUxQa0yM5FPrwYXiEOKEdA6kU0=; b=dAjzvkzcpt8tc1l0YsFx+tafIkXByhQy/i+uapirsT/mDb+Hh7A35BiR9mt9T5yNum ofjTUdhf/Cew7OI8URFgiJbLn1vLXN4d+LTxByTa4y5h9K2lKPBM70iQCcXLtugBkY3O N9POHPUFqA0zSQDL8pRgcx88ZdYqUEXw0N/SjEgq0NNq00Pkb9r8f2iCeYvVVU/bQqni ssqwR4AuJ45vvy7ZfkJe2ydVqWtX5qYw1zL/ITkKWi+JrLZeWjMxcBi3vG1E/hRzD8Lz pw6vcxpDyeH9M+DB+PbzRBZSr+dpI1MbOE34fiQnGzM9D9v+oE76YyAoH7XxYMAG5BCi maww==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.87.243 with SMTP id r106mr52378023qgd.75.1402538192779; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.80.138 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:56:32 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM+vMERb1Q2+K=TbWFeA4vaFVwRNnJK_H8V33DVYd+rEwJfUAw@mail.gmail.com>
From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
To: mif <mif@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/1xcAAzjauBpAobIS1Uj2-CF9JDQ
Cc: draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension <draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch
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, 12 Jun 2014 01:56:35 -0000

WG,

We intend to update the draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension to
align with MPVD arch.
Questions have to be clarified in order to proceed the progress.

Is there any conclusion if PVD rules conflict with RFC6731 and RFC4191?

Two particular cases are:

1)  Name resolution

Let's say, host A receives RDNSS Selection DHCPv6 Option with domain
name of example.com on interface 1.
It also receives PVD-ID of example.com on interface 2.

If the host A makes query for a.example.com, which interface should be selected

2) next hop

draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-01 states:

   For each obtained destination
   address, the node shall perform a next-hop lookup among routers,
   associated with that PVD.


Does it means the host likely excludes Route Information Option on the
routers which can't associate with the PVD?

Many thanks

Gang