Re: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 05 February 2013 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 6CEB721F85C2 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:23:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vcKv+ut+CT9p for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:23:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C56D21F85BC for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:23:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUREV0JJUprVxBMkmPFrFgoBbaTmIpIse@postini.com; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 06:23:12 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1714D1B824A for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:23:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09404190043; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:23:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:23:00 -0800
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF
Thread-Index: AQHOAhiC0CZRnojC20SeBNCskG9mTphowXmAgAFJyQCAADWJAIAA7D8AgAAaCwCAAFciAIAAPEsA
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:22:59 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63074747F7EF@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <CAM+vMERak2vAoYFeSLRep2xjpm480qPjutyv4-tV=KtU0XO=fw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747479BA9@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAM+vMETvE==qUZO2_rhyUB+=ChUR4a9CoTCF+q=gBL2cRA+0UA@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63074747BB1E@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAM+vMER=CPNpXTcrqOpGqEaH+GpA81pyH_D3Hja+1jQqNTNxqw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63074747D7F7@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAM+vMESEiTOTHorbaqSEDbiKPV06Vt2pW3TAs8+Of4=mnVcbNA@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63074747F348@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAM+vMERqcZy-748Sp46QTjVtfh_0JrWm8xNquG-vbZVYikO+Uw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM+vMERqcZy-748Sp46QTjVtfh_0JrWm8xNquG-vbZVYikO+Uw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <5AB08D86425BBD49A909897715F3112A@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: mif <mif@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension <draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF
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, 05 Feb 2013 14:23:18 -0000

On Feb 5, 2013, at 5:47 AM, GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ideally, HE-MIF could choose the right interface
> matching the provisioning domain. However, if the interface in
> provisioning domain A using default gw could reach the peer, it will
> have a problem. I believe the problem is similar with
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6731#section-2.3. The only solution is
> manual user intervention as far as I can say.

No, this is not true.   Furthermore, this failure mode happens to me on a regular basis when my handset connects to a Wifi SSID it recognizes; everything IP-dependent stops until I either disable WiFi or authenticate to the captive portal.  This is a trivially easy attack to do on handsets with WiFi (which is most handsets nowadays).

Similarly, some web gateways, particularly in airports and hotels, only offer service on ports 80 and 443.  I'd like to be able to use this transport where it works, because it's cheaper than my 4G LTE service (at least hypothetically).   But a solution that follows the weak host model will not succeed in this situation—it will either always use LTE, or always use the WiFi.

If HE-MIF does not address this use case, it seems to me that we simply aren't addressing the bulk of the use cases that motivated the formation of this working group.   If that's the case, why do the work?