[Snac] Re: Handling multiple AIL-interfaces in a single SNAC router

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 13 April 2026 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: snac@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: snac@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D7FDB82E9F for <snac@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 12:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1776107804; bh=twA9i97Tk2483YN3VwExrGitV50exnfAxaKhsmsdFg8=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=rrJfW/o5KLRxUVva5oMS734MiQPO7oDctmCnSA5GTKayZqdsMlSOTPDBy9wtJhrpV d04boou0xEH1RNKE5Po2MktdeAsJW9nlG9DWwiFaKrSH5h5dupcHkevQEFmrQwp8Od zTDQdg0kMFibTjBphc0ghklKB8vE+3W6ExYHPRu8=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NrkcvMadfk5L for <snac@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 12:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F4ECDB82E88 for <snac@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 12:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B44A739F58; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 15:16:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id rNxzJOyg9VKq; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 15:16:41 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1776107801; bh=+7ATIY85vIDeilcrm19mkdaojbTW+sgdc7T09XfZ5m4=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=StjY1l8EedOZjK6dh5d48GobiWQm6+e63NM2Hu6IToiGZ67j/b72fPnLgaon/iUVM Nb729qpmniEt2YJoZjucnNzu69sJMocqJM8xkL4/Ob5f5+EdkHaJ9gMoovwpXsExWh 1VIHN0Y/43LWYKvQBMIf/X+oA+R7PGqCWsgj2q8iVkr/kqdvmNWh3eU1kbO3NB6Ohf ymkuSdMNUMgm9TjEi1LOvV+EWmD6nRqoWJ3W1yl9ZgjSttFJSLVc0943xnWShv0k/j Hc94QDJRPwCvnCEvBARmjZEw12Y3zG7LAlBmFjCxtA8nKtNFjfa48c+F5g0Pb7Jm/S LEsB+DMAjsNUQ==
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329DE39F57; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 15:16:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C06E1CD; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 15:16:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk=40iotconsultancy.nl@dmarc.ietf.org>, "snac@ietf.org" <snac@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <ed392ae6-8127-451d-a25d-0f273c49e2b9@iotconsultancy.nl>
References: <ed392ae6-8127-451d-a25d-0f273c49e2b9@iotconsultancy.nl>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; Emacs 30.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0;<'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 15:16:41 -0400
Message-ID: <3140.1776107801@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: 5S4BLHA6WJ4BG7IZO7HURDRCMV4MFE7M
X-Message-ID-Hash: 5S4BLHA6WJ4BG7IZO7HURDRCMV4MFE7M
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Snac] Re: Handling multiple AIL-interfaces in a single SNAC router
List-Id: "Mailing list for discussing problems relating to the automatic connection of stub networks to existing infrastructure networks. " <snac.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/snac/YC4MoMz965blbKlVuZxtZ8dxddI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/snac>
List-Help: <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:snac-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:snac@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:snac-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:snac-leave@ietf.org>

Esko Dijk <esko.dijk=40iotconsultancy.nl@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > So the idea we had already for a while in SNAC-simple is that a single SNAC
    > router can have multiple AIL interfaces, hence connections to multiple
    > AILs. This is written in various places in the draft. Ted suggested

Are/do these multiple AILs link up to a single ISP/Infrastructure router?
Or different ones?

    > 1. For IPv6 routability, I didn't see any issue: the SNAC router receives a
    > packet and determines the right AIL to forward it to based on IP address.

Using source address aware routing, right, so no BCP38 issues.

    > 3. For host and service discoverability, multiple AILs implies creating
    > multiple DNS domains (each mapping to the .local of one AIL) and also may
    > require a technique (supported via a Discovery Proxy) that allows a
    > stub network client to unicast a single DNS query referencing a single
    > domain, which then gets proxied into the multiple DNS zones i.e. executed as
    > mDNS on all AILs. This is similar to how RFC 8766 says to query on both IPv4
    > and IPv6 based on a single unicast query.  Also the naming of these multiple
    > DNS zones may be a topic (marked "WG TBD" currently in the draft.)

So my Thread doorbell ("stub network client") that wants to *print* the
picture it took, can look up printer.local, and this turns into multiple mDNS
queries, one on each AIL?
Is that what this means?

    > We may decide to either tackle these details, or update the draft to limit
    > the scope to a single AIL only.

I think the scope should be limited. This is snac-simple, and I thought it
was done.  Maybe some thinking goes into snac-many-garlic (AIL = French for Garlic)
such that if we go there, it doesn't break something else.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

**       My working hours and your working hours may be different.         **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **