Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-02.txt

GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> Wed, 23 July 2014 15:17 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 4D18D1B28A3; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:17:33 -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 nnzZFSnc68Np; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x233.google.com (mail-qa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C4EE1B2837; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id k15so1372998qaq.38 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
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=XL0yXaYthgFQ7Gh4WLUDhLfxlq1jnPJLQHL2bOIvOCY=; b=xn6+rUoA0tlpXY1nFx7Gky32wHYMOI/Ie9vzbiMcXBVjPwwsxp3ST4bomAD8CHddnJ WlfdazHQcHd7c3VFfHyRefL6WiM4X+nHk9Fj6ncNmF4smKQ2amLtklQQWwFSGzyC7WGW /QWFYZKcgFZGHfxLceh5KkmdkOBkT1Ju+GWEo6yq/FVtQEb2CV1B/CTM6DUJ1l+sK2CT 1QpJ2LuulfJmWvIsLSinf5qH2t9XfQ5IPQQDthpD7x2dT2r6Mv/lc1VgkhXkWiq6n085 1dV9lC4HAerJC6PdxQAGGz5H2wefsq1tLwtY2JMow3sm++uo0cp1OEQjuhCPlH19/U8M t10g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.123.8 with SMTP id n8mr3396561qar.40.1406128650686; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.57.2 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140704005457.5925.30656.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20140704005457.5925.30656.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:17:30 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM+vMETek2H6yQ4AMzEDYhxyRSj_FW7=fFJvBnMBfb6WMzPF6g@mail.gmail.com>
From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/F-RAwEX78_rCU2KaKYpgOivg3Vg
Cc: mif@ietf.org, i-d-announce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-02.txt
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: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:17:33 -0000

Hi Dmitry,

As we presented in MIF-HE, it's suggested to consider the relation of
MPVD and RFC6731, RFC4191.

I posted the message before on the list as the below for your information.

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.


BRs

Gang


2014-07-04 8:54 GMT+08:00, internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org>rg>:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>  This draft is a work item of the Multiple Interfaces Working Group of the
> IETF.
>
>         Title           : Multiple Provisioning Domain Architecture
>         Author          : Dmitry Anipko
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-02.txt
> 	Pages           : 21
> 	Date            : 2014-07-03
>
> Abstract:
>    This document is a product of the work of MIF architecture design
>    team.  It outlines a solution framework for some of the issues,
>    experienced by nodes that can be attached to multiple networks.  The
>    framework defines the notion of a Provisioning Domain (PVD) - a
>    consistent set of network configuration information, and PVD-aware
>    nodes - nodes which learn PVDs from the attached network(s) and/or
>    other sources and manage and use multiple PVDs for connectivity
>    separately and consistently.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-02
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-02
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>