Re: [mif] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-10: (with COMMENT)

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 19 February 2015 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8FD21A916C; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:25:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Az_-T5t8ll_q; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:25:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF5C21A9250; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:25:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89315DA01D2; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:25:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED9753E07C; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:25:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:25:15 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:24:41 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
To: Adrian Farrel <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: []
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,,, The IESG <>,
Subject: Re: [mif] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-10: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:25:41 -0000

Just a high-level response to one of the points you raised: this document is indeed talking about hosts, generally, not nodes, although it's possible that a router could be connected to an upstream network, for instance, that advertises more than one provisioning domain, and the architecture intends to be able to reflect that to nodes on the downstream end.

This document certainly isn't taking any positions on the operation of ASBRs.

However, it is expected that Homenet will write a document that talks about how to provide MPVD info to hosts in a dual-homed home network or a single-homed network with an ISP that provides multiple provisioning domains.   The point of this is that a node connected to a single link on a homenet that is dual-homed ought in principle to be able to behave the same as if that node were connected to a single-homed homenet and also to the other upstream provider (e.g., a mobile data service), or if it were connected to the single upstream link with multiple provisioning domains.

For instance, one of the upstream networks may provide services not accessible through the other upstream network.   A classic example of this would be a VPN, but this could also be something like a VoIP service that is offered by one ISP, where the equivalent service is not available through the other, or when accessed through the other does not provide the same QoS guarantees.