IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document

<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> Thu, 08 September 2011 06:14 UTC

Return-Path: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.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 08F1921F8C73 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.635
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZJFOXi7FyszE for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C3A21F8C63 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p886GBbs003580; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:16:18 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:16:11 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.59) by NOK-am1MHUB-02.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 08:16:10 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-032.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.2.143]) by 008-AM1MMR1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.59]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 08:16:07 +0200
From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com
To: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com, denghui02@hotmail.com
Thread-Topic: [mif] Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document
Thread-Index: AQHMbdzsBHSQ8Tn9hkac95+LwFpGipVC/6Hg
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 06:16:07 +0000
Message-ID: <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE4430969620256F33F@008-AM1MPN1-032.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <COL118-W599D9E8760C3E370077FC3B1140@phx.gbl> <4E683F9B.7020905@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E683F9B.7020905@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tituslabs-classifications-30: TLPropertyRoot=Nokia; Confidentiality=Company Confidential; Project=None;
x-titus-version: 3.3.8.1
x-headerinfofordlp: None
x-tituslabs-classificationhash-30: VgNFIFU9Hx+/nZJb9Kg7IijnarCFufw93yGp9Kqg4VsreROV3oSoCKo4MAZQAlH7cl7QEYi2t0p8hTrsrklpyqBfRuV1a3TP5t4zLsal1WzFsT0mQwFWR/yRh3UhJztIIhyLXE7aj3YtN85Eqji4hyMU9zDnsRybCxak6t2mfbgLZX2mjzSIIHnDkgCjyHZFFOhfBqPd/c5FcvKdb64f0sgP1bp0Rng5aZTrafF1qFNxmzB3fX0dr0qbeG9YfeKCcsiZk5WqSUtPkVYQ2fFAPg==
x-originating-ip: [10.162.78.119]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A2_01CC6E07.EFE8CE60"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2011 06:16:11.0037 (UTC) FILETIME=[CDDD2CD0:01CC6DEE]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: mif@ietf.org, margaretw42@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [mif] Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 06:14:32 -0000

Brian,

Thank you for review. I agree it is a good idea to consult those WGs (and
DHC as well I suppose), but what makes you so concerned of this text:

> >    In deployments where multiple namespaces are present, selection of
> >    correct route and destination and source addresses for the actual IP
> >    connection is crucial as well, as the resolved destination's IP
> >    addresses may be only usable on the network interface over which the
> >    name was resolved on.

I wrote that as I thought it would be useful to talk a little about bigger
picture of some deployments (like in the demo we had few IETFs back -
without presence of DHCPv6 more specific route options the system would not
have worked properly) .. but if that text creates an unwanted link or
dependency or confusion, I think we can drop the text just as well and focus
on the document just to the new options and leave this kind of additional
system-level consideration out of the doc.

Best regards,

Teemu

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email