Re: [mif] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-03.txt

Hi Dmitry,

Thank you for the feedback.

2014-08-10 11:23 GMT+08:00, Dmitry Anipko <Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com>:
> Hi Gang,
>
> for some reason I didn't receive the original email.
>
> My 2 cents on these questions: PVD architecture, among other things, enables
> a) consistent use of networking configuration and, in some cases, b)
> improves selection of the networking configuration. I think 1) below is
> about selection, while 2) is about consistent use.
>
> For selection, if multiple PVDs advertise the same DNS suffix, there are 2
> cases: 1.1 all these PVDs are not trusted, 1.2 some of the PVDs are trusted.
> In 1.1, IMO the most reasonable minimal behavior would be to generally
> ignore the suffix for purposes of the PVD selection, since the information
> is not trusted. In 1.2, if there is only one such trusted PVD, then this
> information can be meaningfully used in the PVD selection process. If there
> is > 1 such trusted PVD, then it is either misconfiguration, or any of these
> multiple trusted PVDs can be equally used, as far as selection by the suffix
> is concerned, and other factors (cost, speed etc) may be decisive.

RFC6731 doesn't carry PVD information. Let's assume int#1 and int#2 on
a PVD-aware node receive RDNSS Selection DHCPv6 Option and PVD
Container Option respectively. And both are trusted.

int#1 receives RDNSS Selection DHCPv6 Option with domain name of example.com
int#2 receives PVD-ID named as example.com.

As far as trust and suffix are concerned, should it be equally used?

> For consistency, I'm not sure I understand the concern: if the specific
> route happens to be associated with the PVD, which the host already decided
> to use, then that specific route will affect the route lookup process. If
> the specific route happens to be in a different PVD, then it will be ignored
> (same approach as with multiple default routes).

A network provision a PVD-aware node that targeting to 2001::1 should
only take int#1. However, the int#2 on the node receives RA carry
Route Information Option indicating 2001::1 with high priority.

Should the node ignore int#2 and select int#1?

Gang

> Let me know if this answers your question.
>
> Thank you,
> Dmitry
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 12:41 AM
> To: Dmitry Anipko
> Cc: MIF Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [mif] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-03.txt
>
> Hello Dmitry,
>
> I posted the questions in other two threads, but didn't get response.
> Could you kindly consider following questions into WGLC comments
>
> 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.
>
>
> BRs
>
> Gang
>
> 2014-08-07 9:53 GMT+08:00, Dmitry Anipko <Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com>:
>> This revision should address the WGLC comments. If there are no additional
>> comments, we'll do the language review (thanks Ian for the kind offer),
>> and
>> I'm following up with authors of the 2 IDs mentioned in the text, which
>> have
>> expired, for the proper replacements.
>>
>> -Dmitry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mif [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 6:49 PM
>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>> Cc: mif@ietf.org
>> Subject: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-03.txt
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>>  This draft is a work item of the Multiple Interfaces Working Group of the
>> IETF.
>>
>>         Title           : Multiple Provisioning Domain Architecture
>>         Author          : Dmitry Anipko
>>       Filename        : draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-03.txt
>>       Pages           : 22
>>       Date            : 2014-08-06
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    This document is a product of the work of MIF architecture design
>>    team.  It outlines a solution framework for some of the issues,
>>    experienced by nodes that can be attached to multiple networks.  The
>>    framework defines the notion of a Provisioning Domain (PvD) - a
>>    consistent set of network configuration information, and PvD-aware
>>    nodes - nodes which learn PvDs from the attached network(s) and/or
>>    other sources and manage and use multiple PvDs for connectivity
>>    separately and consistently.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch/
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-03
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-03
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>