Re: [mif] IRON as a multiple interface solution

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hui,

I thought I had addressed Andrew's points in my
12/1/2011 post:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/current/msg01506.html

Does that post clarify things?

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hui Deng [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:17 AM
> To: 'Andrew Sullivan'; Templin, Fred L
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [mif] IRON as a multiple interface solution
> 
> I agree that Andrew's argument does make sense. You can't 
> tell which service
> it belongs to just based on FQDN
> 
> -Hui
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of
> > Andrew Sullivan
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:11 AM
> > To: Templin, Fred L
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [mif] IRON as a multiple interface solution
> > 
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:22:45AM -0800, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> > > That said, IRON does not preclude the host from accessing
> > > services within the underlying ISP networks. To do so,
> > > however, the host would have to use its ISP-delegated
> > > address(es) and not the VSP-delegated address.
> > >
> > > Does this match your understanding?
> > 
> > The central problem, however, is that if you are looking up the
> > address for a name, you don't obviously know where it is (i.e. you
> > don't know what network you need to go to).  What I don't get in the
> > IRON approach is how you cope with the fact that a user simply types
> > some name into an application.  We can't hardly ask them 
> which network
> > they want to use to look up the name.  The MIF approach, as 
> much as it
> > makes me airsick, does address that issue.
> > 
> > A
> > 
> > --
> > Andrew Sullivan
> > [e-mail]
> > _______________________________________________
> > mif mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
> 
> 
>