Re: [mif] [DNSOP] [dnsext] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document

Keith Moore <> Fri, 21 October 2011 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20241F0C7A; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.732
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.732 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.134, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UHKl4j3-2McO; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FAB81F0C7E; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.mail.srv.osa []) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522A5212ED; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:22:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:22:53 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=EMs naNbFWAbzYVTmyAPeyIEOvaM=; b=JhOGr+0bYJQTTEeukNUKTLnraTetWpYnsnr pb6b3qdGV/2lDNjgBIPcElwF44LhDhkKAImfMDxPbht/Cr4jT3MBwQLxD0UfCQAa y/XS5rSpwC0/ywP7kYDFuYwlYAQFtW1+pqzSKtbeIo4X4YwGPgkncqvWsSP38dRj In2T6fYo=
X-Sasl-enc: Qf8h6JOfifsvLjYPPPW90nSw7CLtRuk73ndPBq5FV+P/ 1319210572
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BB9A2408B64; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:22:50 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-68--546556678"
From: Keith Moore <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:22:23 -0400
Message-Id: <>
References: <COL118-W55403198A984BAAE44BA47B1F70@phx.gbl> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:11:47 -0700
Cc: "<>" <>, "<>" <>, "<>" <>, "<>" <>, "<>" <>, "<>" <>, "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [mif] [DNSOP] [dnsext] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:23:30 -0000

On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:

> On Oct 21, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> And honestly I don't see why handling of non-DNS names like "foo" is in scope for MIF.    
> Because such names are typically resolved using DNS search lists, and at lease one mechanism for setting up search lists is interface-specific.

I don't think it's MIF's job to try to make all existing hacks work, while limiting its scope to specifying how hosts and apps implement things.  

I think it's potentially reasonable for MIF to say things like "here's how you should configure your networks if you want them to be usable from hosts with multiple interfaces."

Also, the subject of multiple active interfaces per host exposes a number of cracks in the Internet architecture, and also exposes cracks in some of the hacks that people have used to work around cracks in the Internet architecture.   IMO, MIF should not be trying to add more hacks.  MIF should primarily do what's best for the Internet architecture in the long term, realizing that IPv4 and therefore RFC 1918 are at EOL.  Hacks to accommodate the existing world should be considered of secondary importance, and should only be considered if they don't pollute the architecture in the long run.

Also, it's arguable that v6 link-local addresses should not be used by applications, even on ad hoc networks, because randomly-generated ULIA prefixes are much better.  And the way you figure out which interface(s) to use in order to reach ULIAs is via routing protocols, not via assuming that a DNS query is specific to a particular network interface.