IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] next step for MIF PVD configuration

Stjepan Groš <stjepan.gros@fer.hr> Mon, 29 February 2016 13:26 UTC

Return-Path: <stjepan.gros@fer.hr>
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 E1AE01A89A2 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:26:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.605
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] 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 yKhCy0f5Lg1d for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:26:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.zemris.fer.hr (gandalf.zemris.fer.hr [161.53.65.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0191A89A0 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:26:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.zemris.fer.hr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9CD53B7C096; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:26:38 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zemris.fer.hr
Received: from mail.zemris.fer.hr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.zemris.fer.hr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OhRH11OMfoDy; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:26:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from w540.sistemnet.local (Enel.zemris.fer.hr [161.53.65.34]) by mail.zemris.fer.hr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB0553B7C077; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:26:34 +0100 (CET)
To: mif@ietf.org
References: <COL125-W396ADD4D31445DAE7867D3B1BA0@phx.gbl>
From: Stjepan Groš <stjepan.gros@fer.hr>
Organization: UNIZG - FER
Message-ID: <56D44703.7050700@fer.hr>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:26:27 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <COL125-W396ADD4D31445DAE7867D3B1BA0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rcx4xPDqN7734eBEjUCAbaV96mSmCSJaI"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/Rb8zSbVj6UNwUbhvFLIaOh9LnVg>
Subject: Re: [mif] next step for MIF PVD configuration
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: <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: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:26:44 -0000

Hi all!

On 29.02.2016 11:21, Hui Deng wrote:
> Hello all
>
> We had the concensus already about droping DHCP MPVD ID document, 
> based on this, here chairs would like to understand whether MIF WG
> has achieved the concensus on below two steps to deliver MPVD conf.
> 1) step 1: using RA to get MPVD ID information
> 2) step 2: using DNS to get other MPVD configuration.

Since I didn't saw any discussions on this list about those proposals I
have few questions/comments:

1. Is this only for IPv6, or it is for IPv4 too (step 2)?

2. Why only MPVD ID in RA? Why not other information too for which RA is
a natural place to be?

3. Why turn DNS into a local network configuration protocol?

SG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email