Re: [mif] Domain name issue in draft-stenberg-mif-mpvd-dns

Margaret Cullen <mrcullen42@gmail.com> Tue, 15 March 2016 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mrcullen42@gmail.com>
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 7AFD012DD10; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ixweO4_rC2rI; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22c.google.com (mail-yw0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 175F312D6C2; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id g127so32543202ywf.2; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=JoZH9ysaCpxFGFtlEVMf8dlNVAHHdutpOFNLSiwHurQ=; b=ZuSkZXRpry4bWRRKdcolWbTylNhZGCYesBmQbeDj8K6E8PtiP68rpUpJfWut2lsUl/ JlSErx2GB+TX0n2UGumd9vSBDPT4QMG83+RFsrNESuab0OxP9YM/QcXEQU9glR+IczmQ K+l2LocVMTwUzl4xavFnKKkFlTsbvGyFX/b56yPs80V+k3ZVaVfHhbzYG+GL+vBx4onw r97aJXAFdguHi5EWkv7HyxZEMfnRZfNLM7LWcmQF3EIPKbRgGdFWc/gV4OimoJH64TMY B55NH+Zdz9bjDQQBk8jCiLJad9WQwHs/O+1EeRj2y7vjOKksNGF1OagUX2PuDCEZnrVx 2vug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=JoZH9ysaCpxFGFtlEVMf8dlNVAHHdutpOFNLSiwHurQ=; b=Cq2iRzeVRdr+MnaO+mwkly+ereZT9CcVAWGL9CyyFc/9oNFVldY0lccCyZ1uA5ih2F SqIUqVIFPTuER3Zt8gv5y6O0AkRoZSbKQdU9tJ4YBT7npe4e9kNMLE6sciu6Oaqkw4ge 9naAAhU7lha2UqwmFgXw+SBprX7WgrX3GkPvqBS2laOfL8bJ2UqFJcNRbi6tfvTEPPEy i8NtTK9WSNx34yrb3AxCUVhOLILsFP/6DlkNcEr+84+GRMo7wnyh4vO3/RzxdftTWNKY gDCJcppW5W1N63Tf75xQylixd+l3vJpEMCAQxxRRrieHnaDROXSWWL52HuzLpZzp+c1B 3ziQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJO0qDQDxTOJ3mdg/ig413y/Vv4S8HHUmCk8WMtxomCL/A3ywW/7UCv1GueLF4B8g==
X-Received: by 10.37.41.66 with SMTP id p63mr15701019ybp.183.1458067444350; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from new-host.home (pool-72-74-19-153.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [72.74.19.153]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b3sm17936080ywc.24.2016.03.15.11.44.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_396182A9-246F-4D73-8019-BDAE0FA74EAB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Margaret Cullen <mrcullen42@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <56E7E35D.6040108@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:44:02 -0400
Message-Id: <A3858199-F97A-40BD-B0E1-9545BC90D83B@gmail.com>
References: <56E7E35D.6040108@bellis.me.uk>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/KJEhXPcids5wLeRfIickDRlM_6g>
Cc: draft-stenberg-mif-mpvd-dns@ietf.org, mif@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mif] Domain name issue in draft-stenberg-mif-mpvd-dns
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 15 Mar 2016 18:44:18 -0000

Personally, I think the lookup should be via PVD name, not based on the IP address of the link, as there are many cases in which the IP addresses known to the end nodes are not known to the DNS.

Margaret

On Mar 15, 2016, at 6:26 AM, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>; wrote:

> Looking at section 3 of this draft, I have a problem with the
> specification where it says that for e.g. a /64 the DNS lookup should be
> for _pvd.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.x....ip6.arpa, and likewise the
> /80 example (with 12 leading zeros).
> 
> Taking the /80 example, it would be impossible given this specification
> to distinguish between a /80 where the bits between 64 and 80 were all
> zeros and the corresponding /64 - they would both end up at the same
> point in the ip6.arpa hierarchy.
> 
> In my opinion (and I do have some prior art in this space, see RFC 7216)
> the "_pvd" label must be at the point in the ip6.arpa that presents the
> same level as the prefix being queried for.  Any leading zeros below
> that point (i.e. to the left in the domain name) MUST be omitted.
> 
> Hence in the /80 case, it would be _pvd.<20 labels>.ip6.arpa and in the
> /64 case it would be _pvd.<16 labels>.ip6.arpa
> 
> Ray
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif