Re: [mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch

"Hui Deng" <denghui@chinamobile.com> Mon, 16 June 2014 02:12 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 24D4D1B2925 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:12:53 -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 mLBpw0sbVPb8 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta.chinamobile.com (cmccmta.chinamobile.com [221.176.64.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E7E551B27D4 for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.20.21]) by rmmx-oa_allagent02-12002 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee2539e527f07c-dc07c; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:12:15 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee2539e527f07c-dc07c
Received: from cmccPC (unknown[10.2.43.171]) by rmsmtp-oa_rmapp03-12003 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee3539e527d3ea-e845b; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:12:15 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee3539e527d3ea-e845b
From: "Hui Deng" <denghui@chinamobile.com>
To: "'Hui Deng'" <denghui@chinamobile.com>, "'GangChen'" <phdgang@gmail.com>, "'mif'" <mif@ietf.org>
References: <CAM+vMERb1Q2+K=TbWFeA4vaFVwRNnJK_H8V33DVYd+rEwJfUAw@mail.gmail.com> <001e01cf8907$cd5c7a40$68156ec0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <001e01cf8907$cd5c7a40$68156ec0$@com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:12:51 +0800
Message-ID: <002501cf8908$7a43ef90$6ecbceb0$@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/gfR5ZADJk54AAAAmJDA=
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/MkFhmXoDJEMJRWThSdiqYITXhLM
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 02:12:53 -0000

Excuse me, I have sent to the wrong email address, sorry for mistake.

Best regards,

-Hui

-----Original Message-----
From: mif [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hui Deng
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 10:08 AM
To: 'GangChen'; 'mif'
Cc: 'draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension'
Subject: Re: [mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch

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



_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif