Re: [mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch
"Hui Deng" <denghui@chinamobile.com> Mon, 16 June 2014 02:08 UTC
Return-Path: <denghui@chinamobile.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 6C4E21B29CB for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ONfoy3R6zzZY for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta.chinamobile.com (cmccmta.chinamobile.com [221.176.64.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 72BAC1B27D4 for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.20.11]) 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[10.2.43.171]) 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 <denghui@chinamobile.com>
To: 'GangChen' <phdgang@gmail.com>, 'mif' <mif@ietf.org>
References: <CAM+vMERb1Q2+K=TbWFeA4vaFVwRNnJK_H8V33DVYd+rEwJfUAw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM+vMERb1Q2+K=TbWFeA4vaFVwRNnJK_H8V33DVYd+rEwJfUAw@mail.gmail.com>
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
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/8dPIbe8HekZLqhY6NZxlUjLgFxs
Cc: 'draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension' <draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:08:10 -0000
这是DAN的意思，还是你的想法？ -----Original Message----- From: mif [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] 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 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 _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif