[mif] question regarding PvD properties and what it applies to

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Sun, 03 April 2016 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 65A3D12D115 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 06:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 k7T1G_J1l2Xz for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 06:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 062AB12D0AB for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 06:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6EB00A2; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 15:56:53 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1459691813; bh=cuVdx4soVVXv7qE2Dcy8/lqeRtBttp21etadIa6L4QU=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=ebElakvr3WTwb1SC5b3GYiFXY/+7WyDN4w9zc8n74K0F6zNtB04/0R7koXOaL/loI K72kRnKkjP3zKP5BwYpi33IW+UQImm4jxomIFz6H41iff7Tr4b7Kpv2Fzr0jU1iNfe oVWx9BN8HhxekHOvhxF/j6wxTmfYfv2/HIsniy8Y=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68892A1 for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 15:56:53 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 15:56:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: mif@ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604031540340.31096@uplift.swm.pp.se>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/ZiJ_5Q49_1jP9aJvocbyZfAo0gM>
Subject: [mif] question regarding PvD properties and what it applies to
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 13:56:58 -0000

Hi,

if I get delegated a /56, and I have multiple /64s out of this /56.

If this PvD has indications that it's metered, how should nodes handle 
traffic within this /56. Intra-/56 traffic would be high-speed and not 
really share the properties of the rest of the PvD.

So I guess my concern here is that generally we think of the PvD as 
properties for traffic *outside* of the subnet, so the properties are not 
really shared for on-link traffic, but instead it's traffic that is going 
via something else, ie everything offlink.

I don't see this specifically written anywhere, but is this the consensus 
we have? If I have a home with multiple routers, should the properties be 
applied for my inter-subnet traffic within my home as well?

Potentially, wouldn't it make sense that the PvD properties apply to 
routes used with the source address, so I can have one set of properties 
for the /56, potentially another set for my provider /29 , perhaps I have 
some zero-rated destinations that I can talk to where the properties are 
different, and then another set of properties entirely for traffic sent to 
the default route?

My reason for bringing this up is our discussion regarding what transport 
to use. I think it's important to understand how big the information blob 
is going to be, who might give input to the information blob, and if I 
want to apply local "intra-home" policy to my clients to augment 
information my ISP provides. This kind of "local policy edits" kinds of 
decices what mechanism could be used for it, so I think it's premature to 
try to decide mechanism before we know how the information is going to be 
used, how we think it should be formatted and what it applies to?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se