Re: [mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch

"Hui Deng" <> Mon, 16 June 2014 02:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4E21B29CB for <>; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.371
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ONfoy3R6zzZY for <>; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 72BAC1B27D4 for <>; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown[]) by rmmx-oa_allagent01-12001 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee1539e515de25-85e25; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:07:25 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee1539e515de25-85e25
Received: from cmccPC (unknown[]) by rmsmtp-oa_rmapp01-12001 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee1539e515caf1-f3e9c; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:07:25 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee1539e515caf1-f3e9c
From: "Hui Deng" <>
To: "'GangChen'" <>, "'mif'" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:08:01 +0800
Message-ID: <001e01cf8907$cd5c7a40$68156ec0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac+F4XmG57GdNuSQQRCzNRi/gfR5ZADJk54A
Content-Language: zh-cn
Cc: 'draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension' <>
Subject: Re: [mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:08:10 -0000


-----Original Message-----
From: mif [] On Behalf Of GangChen
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:57 AM
To: mif
Cc: draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension
Subject: [mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch


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 on interface 1.
It also receives PVD-ID of on interface 2.

If the host A makes query for, 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


mif mailing list