[mif] RFC 6731 implementations

Petr Menšík <pemensik@redhat.com> Thu, 03 November 2022 12:18 UTC

Return-Path: <pemensik@redhat.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 3C03FC14CE31 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 05:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.571, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iSnQw4nHRuNU for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 05:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17C51C14CF0F for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 05:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1667477895; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xMhdNDYq7MvLQqu6Mkcl1HXwQf/khyiBfLfU4PoOArM=; b=Cf1vnfmyBlsqiHEJ502ilYk/NqEm5dLVSZxK1i7L3qLtyT0qOy5rj0W5guOf3RpiHE//O0 J/HotNMIsYzB5Vea5AfzlljpGSoMVf1iA+fc4pJJ/QzjOs9I0jjyZXKhrBN0NQ/Q/Qgiea d5NM591A3i8RIp10xIJpy6NdIBtXPrs=
Received: from mail-ej1-f72.google.com (mail-ej1-f72.google.com [209.85.218.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-494-2zzOsv5CPe2ZZv3Pb9bAVA-1; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 08:18:14 -0400
X-MC-Unique: 2zzOsv5CPe2ZZv3Pb9bAVA-1
Received: by mail-ej1-f72.google.com with SMTP id sc40-20020a1709078a2800b007ae024e5e82so1111997ejc.13 for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 05:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:content-language :user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xMhdNDYq7MvLQqu6Mkcl1HXwQf/khyiBfLfU4PoOArM=; b=XGzefZrC32jDYVCmnvjJGakbzv9FF3k9pvMu7kmfr3wAsaswbOowvM+xTV5mxH2sXp eupuvrv+8wXP+t8qaHP8ul+NDqG0hXi+Cbc5rypVf4HjInxTUCVOW8vshuJBpED5qSiT Rzk1nLSv4ckw1gyck7oL+LmlDqw3m8vH+BVEQzUcWHq5z4KGxUU3LTSZ3yg5Bn5F4G71 RSrvqTUw5K0jhqOIgHn2Ef7wcphyjETqEZLRVlXZ9c0LdUZWh4BANfcskNqieL+u1LTx PdBVJCZdYFoqoTKut8oAMk+nkKGMRLpjQBEmhV4JiHoEk/eLhDDTrMCm2HKzFYWMsxur jEfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1mYCauOLZW/DkjMnU/QPB+qsWWMUoyCOaeflpLxkCDdbGvkgAb Hm2xsAUibxxtSvIvGJD5afztE9KMDlLLub71VSUDD7/Z7ca0ExeumJ1bxM1zidxYIzU5sXMsARj 7Z1iYtemtvHc68T7UcfSU5tGhYoH1EOaqc19feAA0Fvn32+89CzZWbbs=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d4d2:0:b0:464:4e09:3a71 with SMTP id t18-20020aa7d4d2000000b004644e093a71mr720631edr.165.1667477892784; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 05:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5Fqy9h0MOuLLu6tpYbZnhjwBDFiyrPHnrBMMVRkLU+64OJopyyNGGuRDhDuUTga44LLtDX1g==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d4d2:0:b0:464:4e09:3a71 with SMTP id t18-20020aa7d4d2000000b004644e093a71mr720606edr.165.1667477892549; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 05:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.43.2.41] (nat-pool-brq-t.redhat.com. [213.175.37.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z25-20020a170906945900b0079e552fd860sm417579ejx.152.2022.11.03.05.18.11 for <mif@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Nov 2022 05:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <83c25827-1211-8c1c-9001-e6cb6fdaaab9@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2022 13:18:11 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.1
To: mif@ietf.org
From: Petr Menšík <pemensik@redhat.com>
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/N9oDDA1cLJb4UnbK28_D4izxmA0>
Subject: [mif] RFC 6731 implementations
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 03 Nov 2022 12:18:22 -0000

Hello former MIF group members,

I have found RFC 6731 [1], which is Standard Tracks since December 2012. 
I have found reference to it from some draft of add WG. When I read it, 
I found it proposes solution to existing problem on Linux desktops, 
which is not yet sufficiently solved. A bit similar attempt is 
implemented by systemd-resolved [2], but does not use any standardized way.

I think every device with multiple interfaces is potential candidate for 
it. Every laptop with ethernet+wifi, every smart phone with 
wifi+cellular network. Yet I haven't found any attempts to implement RFC 
6731. Do you know existing implementations for any operating system? Is 
it used somewhere already? Is there a reason why it is not widely used?

I work in Red Hat as a Software Engineer, maintaining some DNS packages. 
Dnsmasq has some integration with Network Manager, which does something 
similar. Yet they are misusing dns-search parameter of DHCP protocol. I 
would like to add more proper support, but I find current standards 
confusing. Is there more relevant successor to this standard?

Best Regards,
Petr

1. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6731.html
2. https://systemd.io/RESOLVED-VPNS/

-- 
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer, RHEL
Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB