Re: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF

GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> Sun, 03 February 2013 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <phdgang@gmail.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 E152921F846C for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 06:12:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zCihAMNLwCb2 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 06:12:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com (mail-qa0-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C963921F8E97 for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 06:12:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id j8so951878qah.0 for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 06:12:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=E2rf1oFb5VmsgFf/uksrA3zdzGV1XIu/KfehDSXSMAs=; b=e8jt2tbzIRcvu77J1/ZKU8VtES2RIz9Mx3uyx+3imt686pEJNCEjyeCqfJFAKWDIps rdlC+oMLNqtHfPixnGT/4UI5RKqa4exeRvxWfUFD/+dBZECOT5TUsvKG7//JwMD0PnU5 QguyukwZW25Bk9wRFQDxC9iIyPlPBoWJVcELWr5O/K/mcNYfWm9USsCOnnAm0+0YdilI HfuZhMdE9Mq06ThcbMUUP0PamUDYfwMZbLANVZ5Dr9YYVxtr1mcEMPVaef2q+gYdW9Fx dOq9rsEC9+EroX3Owye4Gh8eXO6VUibVpT05UiLTKAA6ymQlQGeHj5hbkiOrjvOf4KiU MTSw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.207.72 with SMTP id fx8mr17066169qab.66.1359900751107; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 06:12:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.49.48.12 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 06:12:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747479BA9@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <CAM+vMERak2vAoYFeSLRep2xjpm480qPjutyv4-tV=KtU0XO=fw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747479BA9@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:12:30 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM+vMETvE==qUZO2_rhyUB+=ChUR4a9CoTCF+q=gBL2cRA+0UA@mail.gmail.com>
From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: mif <mif@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension <draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF
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: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 14:12:33 -0000

2013/2/2, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>:
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:56 AM, GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Therefore, RFC6731 should be recommended as the proper solution for
>> DNS selections.
>
> RFC6731 is only applicable in a very restricted set of use cases, and cannot
> be counted upon to resolve this issue in the majority of use cases.  I

Acknowledged. RFC6731 listed the use cases. The described case 1, 2 in
the previous message can be likely solved through RFC6731. So the
statement of applicability is particularly for those cases.

> would expect it to be helpful in the case of some enterprise situations (but
> not with BYOD) and with some mobile handsets (but only for the mobile
> provider's private domains).   So we simply can't use this to address the
> problem.

I would like to learn more about the problems. One description I found
was documented in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6418#section-4.1. If I
understand correctly, it mainly talk about the issues of coordination
with private name space among different interfaces. I guess those
issues are also the targets of RFC6731. If there is anything missing,
it would be helpful you could kindly point out.

Best Regards

Gang
>