Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-api-extension-04.txt
Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 22 October 2013 06:10 UTC
Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED1311E8480 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZemARqdUOt2o for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F55011E8160 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id CEB2A9C; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:10:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26729A for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:10:20 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:10:20 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: mif@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20131021172000.32548.44363.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1310220756350.19510@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <20131021172000.32548.44363.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-api-extension-04.txt
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: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:10:25 -0000
In 3.1 there is a "point of discussion". I would like to comment on this. For me, it's obvious that there can/must/will be separate provisioning domains on the same wire. Basically, I want to have everything with very fine granularity, basically being able to have separate DNS servers for each prefix on the wire, which might even be announced by the same router. So each prefix announced in a style approximate with http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lepape-6man-prefix-metadata-00 should be able to have its own RFC6106 (perhaps needs to be extended) announced resolver, default gateway etc. I also forsee that there is going to have to be extensions to DHCPv6 in order to tell the host what information goes where, but let's not get ahead of things, let's just conclude that just the fact that there would be two routers on the same wire, each advertising unique prefixes that the other one isn't announcing, means there is more than one PVD on the wire. About the rest of the document, my idea of how this would work would be that there also would be a way on the OS to bind a complete application to a PVD, ie my corporate email program would be bound to the "corporate PVD", and when this wasn't available, the program wouldn't see any network connectivity at all. I could then establish connectivity to this PVD by either running a VPN client over the Internet, or I could connect to the enterprise network with wifi or cable directly. When reading the document I can't tell if this is possible or not (this is for non-MIF aware applications). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
- [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-api-extension-04… internet-drafts
- Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-api-extensio… Mikael Abrahamsson