From marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca Mon Jun 1 10:41:50 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272B328C0FF for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:41:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bDcWDgM9rA4Z for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA4828C0F0 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix, from userid 8) id E618E29E15B2; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:41:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from h103.viagenie.ca (h103.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.103]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71AB29E159A for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:41:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4A2412DB.2050809@viagenie.ca> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:41:47 -0400 From: Marc Blanchet User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mif@ietf.org References: <20090428150001.6FC903A7104@core3.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20090428150001.6FC903A7104@core3.amsl.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:41:50 -0000 Hello, I've been updating the MIF PS draft. I'm trying to catch and summarize the discussions, conclusions, concensus on the mailing list and during the BOF. Most of the update is done now, but I just want to clarify agreement on one topic. Reading the mailing list, it is not clear to me if we agreed that the scope of the MIF is: a) multiple addresses on more than one interface (as presented to the IP stack) b) multiple addresses on one or more interfaces here interface is a logical abstraction to the IP stack: i.e. maybe virtual and/or physical. and somewhat orthogonal is also the admin domain 1) multiple addresses from more than one admin domain (/network) 2) multiple addresses from one or more admin domain The charter talks about "attaching to multiple networks", with one example as multiple default routers on the same link. Therefore, I'm thinking the agreement is b-1: i.e. multiple addresses on one or more interfaces (as presented to the IP stack) from more than one admin domain. Am I right? Am I scoping it correctly? If yes, does that exclude a-2?: multiple addresses on more than one interface from one (or more) admin domain? Comments? Marc. -- ========= IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca From gson@rim.com Mon Jun 1 11:03:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B4613A71BC for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:03:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oJ+UlJM+pwBC for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhs04ykf.rim.net (mhs04ykf.rim.net [216.9.243.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302073A71AF for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhs04ykf.rim.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mhs04ykf.rim.net (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 08E035C9C2; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:03:14 -0400 (EDT) X-AuditID: 0a666446-a8cadbb000002ec5-6d-4a2417e13d7a Received: from XCH38YKF.rim.net (unknown [10.64.31.208]) by mhs04ykf.rim.net (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id C46255C9AB; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:03:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from XCH42YKF.rim.net ([10.64.31.38]) by XCH38YKF.rim.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:03:11 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:03:10 -0400 Message-ID: <777025D7F9E074449F3DAEB73C25690205F0FF20@XCH42YKF.rim.net> In-Reply-To: <4A2412DB.2050809@viagenie.ca> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? Thread-Index: Acni4Elv1eCQ9oO3QEuh7QvulqzNnwAARU2g From: "Giyeong Son" To: "Marc Blanchet" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jun 2009 18:03:11.0109 (UTC) FILETIME=[39BFBB50:01C9E2E3] X-Tracking: ONC3m79J7f57zp0jFVtWxPxr7v2VYI3kBbb X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: Re: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:03:16 -0000 My question is, if "2" is valid for MIF, what kind of (use) cases would be feasible from the perspective of MIF (or attaching to multiple networks)? So, what is the meaning of "multiple addresses from one admin domain" from the MIF perspective? I think that it may not have any implication on the MIF perspective. Therefore, I cannot differentiate between 1 and 2 from the MIF perspective. Giyeong -----Original Message----- From: mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet Sent: June 1, 2009 1:42 PM To: mif@ietf.org Subject: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? Hello, I've been updating the MIF PS draft. I'm trying to catch and summarize the discussions, conclusions, concensus on the mailing list and during the BOF. Most of the update is done now, but I just want to clarify agreement on one topic. Reading the mailing list, it is not clear to me if we agreed that the scope of the MIF is: a) multiple addresses on more than one interface (as presented to the IP stack) b) multiple addresses on one or more interfaces here interface is a logical abstraction to the IP stack: i.e. maybe virtual and/or physical. and somewhat orthogonal is also the admin domain 1) multiple addresses from more than one admin domain (/network) 2) multiple addresses from one or more admin domain The charter talks about "attaching to multiple networks", with one example as multiple default routers on the same link. Therefore, I'm thinking the agreement is b-1: i.e. multiple addresses on one or more interfaces (as presented to the IP stack) from more than one admin domain. Am I right? Am I scoping it correctly? If yes, does that exclude a-2?: multiple addresses on more than one interface from one (or more) admin domain? Comments? Marc. -- =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif --------------------------------------------------------------------- This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential infor= mation, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-c= lient or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information.= Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is= prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immedia= tely reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use,= dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by uninte= nded recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. From pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com Tue Jun 2 05:24:26 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E6423A68D2 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 05:24:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B1xGgTNxuvGT for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 05:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from R-MAIL1.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783673A6808 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 05:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:24:21 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:24:21 +0200 Message-ID: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C462191391@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <4A2412DB.2050809@viagenie.ca> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? Thread-Index: Acni4EkRvNU7JUHRSg6cVA9Llp0OBQAmPRsw References: <20090428150001.6FC903A7104@core3.amsl.com> <4A2412DB.2050809@viagenie.ca> From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2009 12:24:21.0472 (UTC) FILETIME=[0EC10E00:01C9E37D] Subject: Re: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:24:26 -0000 Hi Marc, If b) is the scope of MIF, a) is also supported. Did I miss something? Regards, Pierrick > -----Message d'origine----- > De=A0: mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] De la part = de Marc > Blanchet > Envoy=E9=A0: lundi 1 juin 2009 19:42 > =C0=A0: mif@ietf.org > Objet=A0: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? >=20 > Hello, > I've been updating the MIF PS draft. I'm trying to catch and = summarize > the discussions, conclusions, concensus on the mailing list and during > the BOF. Most of the update is done now, but I just want to clarify > agreement on one topic. >=20 > Reading the mailing list, it is not clear to me if we agreed that the > scope of the MIF is: > a) multiple addresses on more than one interface (as presented to the = IP > stack) > b) multiple addresses on one or more interfaces >=20 > here interface is a logical abstraction to the IP stack: i.e. maybe > virtual and/or physical. >=20 > and somewhat orthogonal is also the admin domain >=20 > 1) multiple addresses from more than one admin domain (/network) > 2) multiple addresses from one or more admin domain >=20 > The charter talks about "attaching to multiple networks", with one > example as multiple default routers on the same link. >=20 > Therefore, I'm thinking the agreement is b-1: > i.e. multiple addresses on one or more interfaces (as presented to the > IP stack) from more than one admin domain. >=20 > Am I right? Am I scoping it correctly? >=20 > If yes, does that exclude a-2?: multiple addresses on more than one > interface from one (or more) admin domain? >=20 > Comments? >=20 > Marc. > -- > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca > Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca > DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca >=20 > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif From marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca Tue Jun 2 06:01:40 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D7A3A6A50 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 06:01:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E4ZJMxDU2YJj for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 06:01:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF2E3A6878 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 06:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix, from userid 8) id 75CD029E15BA; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Macintosh-9.local (dsl15-209.express.oricom.ca [64.18.184.209]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1749429E15B0; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4A2522B1.8070703@viagenie.ca> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:01:37 -0400 From: Marc Blanchet User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com References: <20090428150001.6FC903A7104@core3.amsl.com> <4A2412DB.2050809@viagenie.ca> <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C462191391@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C462191391@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:01:40 -0000 pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com a écrit : > Hi Marc, > > If b) is the scope of MIF, a) is also supported. Did I miss something? humm... sure, b) includes a); but a) does not include b). But if you read further down, I'm trying to scope MIF. Therefore, the questions were more about the set of characteristics, bound together, that define what a MIF host is. In other words, what I'm trying to do is define what is a MIF host, since there was a lot of discussions before on what MIF is and is not. The questions below were one partial way to scope what a MIF host is. Marc. > > Regards, > Pierrick > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Marc >> Blanchet >> Envoyé : lundi 1 juin 2009 19:42 >> À : mif@ietf.org >> Objet : [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? >> >> Hello, >> I've been updating the MIF PS draft. I'm trying to catch and summarize >> the discussions, conclusions, concensus on the mailing list and during >> the BOF. Most of the update is done now, but I just want to clarify >> agreement on one topic. >> >> Reading the mailing list, it is not clear to me if we agreed that the >> scope of the MIF is: >> a) multiple addresses on more than one interface (as presented to the IP >> stack) >> b) multiple addresses on one or more interfaces >> >> here interface is a logical abstraction to the IP stack: i.e. maybe >> virtual and/or physical. >> >> and somewhat orthogonal is also the admin domain >> >> 1) multiple addresses from more than one admin domain (/network) >> 2) multiple addresses from one or more admin domain >> >> The charter talks about "attaching to multiple networks", with one >> example as multiple default routers on the same link. >> >> Therefore, I'm thinking the agreement is b-1: >> i.e. multiple addresses on one or more interfaces (as presented to the >> IP stack) from more than one admin domain. >> >> Am I right? Am I scoping it correctly? >> >> If yes, does that exclude a-2?: multiple addresses on more than one >> interface from one (or more) admin domain? >> >> Comments? >> >> Marc. >> -- >> ========= >> IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca >> Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca >> DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mif mailing list >> mif@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif -- ========= IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca From gson@rim.com Tue Jun 2 06:17:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E2DF3A6FBD for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 06:17:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LqUKPep6nIS4 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 06:17:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhs03ykf.rim.net (mhs03ykf.rim.net [216.9.243.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168313A6F32 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 06:16:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhs03ykf.rim.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mhs03ykf.rim.net (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 077F8588A7; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:16:54 -0400 (EDT) X-AuditID: 0a401fcb-a2a6bbb000003e39-8d-4a25264585f6 Received: from XCH38YKF.rim.net (unknown [10.64.31.208]) by mhs03ykf.rim.net (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 1731858826; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:16:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from XCH42YKF.rim.net ([10.64.31.38]) by XCH38YKF.rim.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:16:43 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:16:42 -0400 Message-ID: <777025D7F9E074449F3DAEB73C25690205F0FF27@XCH42YKF.rim.net> In-Reply-To: <4A2522B1.8070703@viagenie.ca> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? Thread-Index: Acnjgko8JFZ6vCRDQ0+2i1h7f/wupAAAPZnQ From: "Giyeong Son" To: "Marc Blanchet" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2009 13:16:43.0437 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F82DDD0:01C9E384] X-Tracking: ONC3m79J7f57zp0jFVtWxPxr7v2VYI3kBbb X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:17:01 -0000 I agree with Pierrick. If multiple addresses on one admin domain does not have any concern from the= MIF perspective, it might be better to be more generalized. As a result, we= could prevent any circumstance of multiple addresses on one domain for a ho= st that is excluded in the MIF scope although practically MIF could cover it= without any issues. Best Regards, Giyeong -----Original Message----- From: mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marc B= lanchet Sent: June 2, 2009 9:02 AM To: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com a =E9crit : > Hi Marc, > > If b) is the scope of MIF, a) is also supported. Did I miss something? humm... sure, b) includes a); but a) does not include b). But if you read further do= wn, I'm trying to scope MIF. Therefore, the questions were more about the se= t of characteristics, bound together, that define what a MIF host is. In other words, what I'm trying to do is define what is a MIF host, since th= ere was a lot of discussions before on what MIF is and is not. The questions below were one partial way to scope what a MIF host is. Marc. > > Regards, > Pierrick > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de >> Marc Blanchet Envoy=E9 : lundi 1 juin 2009 19:42 =C0 : mif@ietf.org Objet= >> : [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? >> >> Hello, >> I've been updating the MIF PS draft. I'm trying to catch and >> summarize the discussions, conclusions, concensus on the mailing list >> and during the BOF. Most of the update is done now, but I just want >> to clarify agreement on one topic. >> >> Reading the mailing list, it is not clear to me if we agreed that >> the scope of the MIF is: >> a) multiple addresses on more than one interface (as presented to the >> IP >> stack) >> b) multiple addresses on one or more interfaces >> >> here interface is a logical abstraction to the IP stack: i.e. maybe >> virtual and/or physical. >> >> and somewhat orthogonal is also the admin domain >> >> 1) multiple addresses from more than one admin domain (/network) >> 2) multiple addresses from one or more admin domain >> >> The charter talks about "attaching to multiple networks", with one >> example as multiple default routers on the same link. >> >> Therefore, I'm thinking the agreement is b-1: >> i.e. multiple addresses on one or more interfaces (as presented to >> the IP stack) from more than one admin domain. >> >> Am I right? Am I scoping it correctly? >> >> If yes, does that exclude a-2?: multiple addresses on more than one >> interface from one (or more) admin domain? >> >> Comments? >> >> Marc. >> -- >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn >> server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news >> service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mif mailing list >> mif@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif -- =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server= for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news service: http:/= /reeves.viagenie.ca _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif --------------------------------------------------------------------- This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential infor= mation, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-c= lient or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information.= Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is= prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immedia= tely reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use,= dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by uninte= nded recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. From marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca Tue Jun 2 07:09:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769C73A700D for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:09:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.953 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZweiK+pPzxfo for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 625AF3A6ECB for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix, from userid 8) id 15A7C29E15BF; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:09:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from h103.viagenie.ca (h103.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.103]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09BA729E15B0 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:09:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4A2532B5.1070007@viagenie.ca> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:09:57 -0400 From: Marc Blanchet User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: mif@ietf.org References: <777025D7F9E074449F3DAEB73C25690205F0FF27@XCH42YKF.rim.net> In-Reply-To: <777025D7F9E074449F3DAEB73C25690205F0FF27@XCH42YKF.rim.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [mif] mif host definition X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:09:58 -0000 Hi, again, trying to come up with a MIF host definition. Here is a snippet from the upcoming rev of the draft. A MIF host is defined as: - a RFC1122 compliant host - configured with more than one IP addresses - on one or more active interfaces, as presented to the IP stack. - - The interfaces may be logical, virtual or physical. - The IP addresses come from one or more administrative domains. - The IP addresses may be from the same or from different address families, such as IPv4 and IPv6. - Communications using these IP addresses may happen simultaneously and independently. - While the MIF host may forward packets between its interfaces, forwarding packets is out of scope of this definition. Comments? Marc. -- ========= IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca From gson@rim.com Tue Jun 2 07:26:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2ED53A6B1B for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:26:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S3MvN46R1Gah for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhs04ykf.rim.net (mhs04ykf.rim.net [216.9.243.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B213A6946 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhs04ykf.rim.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mhs04ykf.rim.net (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 503915C5AF; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:26:47 -0400 (EDT) X-AuditID: 0a666446-a8cadbb000002ec5-c2-4a2536a53144 Received: from XCH39YKF.rim.net (unknown [10.64.31.40]) by mhs04ykf.rim.net (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 0B8575C393; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:26:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from XCH42YKF.rim.net ([10.64.31.38]) by XCH39YKF.rim.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:26:44 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:26:44 -0400 Message-ID: <777025D7F9E074449F3DAEB73C25690205F0FF2A@XCH42YKF.rim.net> In-Reply-To: <4A2532B5.1070007@viagenie.ca> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [mif] mif host definition Thread-Index: Acnji9JfcvlN4UFPT3CN+3AKf1RH3gAAS8Pg From: "Giyeong Son" To: "Marc Blanchet" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2009 14:26:44.0942 (UTC) FILETIME=[27CDA6E0:01C9E38E] X-Tracking: ONC3m79J7f57zp0jFVtWxPxr7v2VYI3kBbb X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] mif host definition X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:26:50 -0000 I feel that the last item seems to be an item regarding the scope of the MIF working group. It may not be appropriate to present it as an item of definition. So, can it be presented in the area that describes the scope of the MIF working group? Giyeong -----Original Message----- From: mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet Sent: June 2, 2009 10:10 AM Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: [mif] mif host definition Hi, again, trying to come up with a MIF host definition. Here is a snippet from the upcoming rev of the draft. A MIF host is defined as: - a RFC1122 compliant host - configured with more than one IP addresses - on one or more active interfaces, as presented to the IP stack. - - The interfaces may be logical, virtual or physical. - The IP addresses come from one or more administrative domains. - The IP addresses may be from the same or from different address families, such as IPv4 and IPv6. - Communications using these IP addresses may happen simultaneously and independently. - While the MIF host may forward packets between its interfaces, forwarding packets is out of scope of this definition. Comments? Marc. -- =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif --------------------------------------------------------------------- This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential infor= mation, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-c= lient or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information.= Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is= prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immedia= tely reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use,= dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by uninte= nded recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. From mrw@lilacglade.org Wed Jun 3 12:35:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623063A6D0E for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:35:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1UjD3CsOxmGP for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from QMTA08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603703A692D for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.27]) by QMTA08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id zPf91b0080bG4ec58Xba5D; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:35:34 +0000 Received: from lilac.sandstorm.net ([69.33.111.74]) by OMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id zXbN1b00k1cMU3H3PXbRxf; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:35:32 +0000 Message-Id: From: Margaret Wasserman To: Marc Blanchet In-Reply-To: <4A2532B5.1070007@viagenie.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.4) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:35:21 -0400 References: <777025D7F9E074449F3DAEB73C25690205F0FF27@XCH42YKF.rim.net> <4A2532B5.1070007@viagenie.ca> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.4) Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] mif host definition X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:35:39 -0000 Hi Marc, In this message, I am speaking as an individual technical contributor, not as a WG chair. I have some comments (below) on your proposed definition? > A MIF host is defined as: > - a RFC1122 compliant host I believe that this would limit us to v4-only, which is not desirable, IMO. > > - configured with more than one IP addresses > - on one or more active interfaces, as presented to the IP > stack. - > - The interfaces may be logical, virtual or physical. > - The IP addresses come from one or more administrative domains. > - The IP addresses may be from the same or from different address > families, such as IPv4 and IPv6. > - Communications using these IP addresses may happen simultaneously > and > independently. What is the point of this definition? Doesn't this encompass all hosts on the Internet that have more than one address, including every IPv6 node and every IPv4 node with a loopback interface? IMO, we need to focus our work on IP nodes that have (direct or indirect) connectivity to two or more administratively or physically distinct networks. The problems for multi-interface hosts comes in when a node needs to decide which of those networks to use for a given purpose. > - While the MIF host may forward packets between its interfaces, > forwarding packets is out of scope of this definition. I agree that a MIF node may or may not be a router, but I think it would be better to just say that instead of phrasing it this way. Margaret From marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca Wed Jun 3 13:00:05 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CF763A697D for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:00:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.388, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id So-P6jMyNVsJ for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B383A67E6 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix, from userid 8) id 5324629E15B4; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:58:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from h103.viagenie.ca (h103.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.103]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A1629E15B1; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:58:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4A26D5FD.6020806@viagenie.ca> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:58:53 -0400 From: Marc Blanchet User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Margaret Wasserman References: <777025D7F9E074449F3DAEB73C25690205F0FF27@XCH42YKF.rim.net> <4A2532B5.1070007@viagenie.ca> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] mif host definition X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:00:05 -0000 Margaret Wasserman a écrit : > > I have some comments (below) on your proposed definition? > >> A MIF host is defined as: >> - a RFC1122 compliant host > > I believe that this would limit us to v4-only, which is not desirable, IMO. ok. good catch. although most of RFC1122 text related to MIF is applicable to v4 and v6. I'll rephrase. >> >> - configured with more than one IP addresses >> - on one or more active interfaces, as presented to the IP stack. - >> - The interfaces may be logical, virtual or physical. >> - The IP addresses come from one or more administrative domains. >> - The IP addresses may be from the same or from different address >> families, such as IPv4 and IPv6. >> - Communications using these IP addresses may happen simultaneously and >> independently. > > What is the point of this definition? the current draft was using "multihomed". That is obviously too ambiguous given the discussions we have had since weeks. Therefore, I tried to define what that beast is and use it over the rest of the draft. > Doesn't this encompass all hosts > on the Internet that have more than one address, including every IPv6 > node and every IPv4 node with a loopback interface? I thought the same thing when I removed the restriction on more than one admin domain. > > IMO, we need to focus our work on IP nodes that have (direct or > indirect) connectivity to two or more administratively or physically > distinct networks. agree. That was what I wrote in a previous email. to me, MIF is related to more than one admin domain. but I've seen different opinions on the mailing list on this. If we agree that "MIF is about more than one admin domain, then I'll put it back. > The problems for multi-interface hosts comes in when > a node needs to decide which of those networks to use for a given purpose. > >> - While the MIF host may forward packets between its interfaces, >> forwarding packets is out of scope of this definition. > > I agree that a MIF node may or may not be a router, but I think it would > be better to just say that instead of phrasing it this way. > humm... I think "router" may mean many things (running a routing protocol, do NAT, etc...). That is why I wrote what is to me the key thing for this discussion: we don't want to work on devices which forward packets between interfaces. Any text suggestion? marc. > Margaret -- ========= IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca From marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca Fri Jun 5 11:56:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888843A69B8 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:56:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5adiIo0RynSc for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4127C3A68CB for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix, from userid 8) id 9E2B429E15CF; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:56:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from h103.viagenie.ca (h103.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.103]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A6D29E1585 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:56:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4A296A4F.5090407@viagenie.ca> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:56:15 -0400 From: Marc Blanchet User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mif X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020205090301040903090704" Subject: [mif] [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt] X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:56:17 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020205090301040903090704 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello, new version of the draft, _trying_ to capture most of the comments on the mailing list, bof, etc... Please comment. one of the discussions among authors is the following: - is MIF scope restricted to: a) one or more administrative domains b) more than one administrative domains. My own opinion is b), while my co-author is a). Marc. -------- Message original -------- Sujet : I-D Action:draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt Date : Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:45:01 -0700 (PDT) De : Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Répondre à : internet-drafts@ietf.org Pour : i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Multiple Interfaces Problem Statement Author(s) : M. Blanchet, P. Seite Filename : draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2009-06-05 A multihomed host receives node configuration information from each of its access networks. Some configuration objects are global to the node, some are local to the interface. Various issues arise when multiple conflicting node-scoped configuration objects are received on multiple interfaces. Similar situations also happen with single interface host connected to multiple networks. This document describes these issues. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. -- ========= IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca --------------020205090301040903090704 Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-06-05114309.I-D@ietf.org> --------------020205090301040903090704 Content-Type: text/plain; name="Portion de message jointe" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Portion de message jointe" _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt --------------020205090301040903090704-- From denghui02@gmail.com Sun Jun 7 02:19:03 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F6D3A69E9 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 2009 02:19:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oB1Qj6BPgkF2 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 2009 02:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.168]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D083A68C8 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 2009 02:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so952238wff.31 for ; Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:19:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vphfS18IESEUZRtS4sJ3OGVl/BghxgdBnMAambB5TvU=; b=S1gYY5JQrSAzTQQB2DhboqnWRFKXyhpFKXtTgFJJS4Mdsz8xOLY/tDJVXW/YMzHrwJ tHz6AKm0xSqyOT57EB22PjKuL9Kvz9/JUNDyQI/Yi2IIU4p9Fs2UjfXcpHQu5ZZE8rn0 0tThbVx92KB2r7Ry5Q3pmQ7FqfcaCgLKFp5oY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=g5IWMrFNIwxyv9WkPkjyXP0rRtgwMY6Ar4Ck+JwpYg5nLIFTpWbTpoi+g53P43P9ol GM4TEiO/K+gPiWh2ry8MOQZnEbVZE9K+xaqnZS+/+rY339vY13K0/T0cPzNh0zrmQaGD xsIB9r5eVs4t8WLFK6Uhu/UzqayvWYHPCnpnU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.246.20 with SMTP id t20mr1998612wfh.291.1244366344730; Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:19:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <777025D7F9E074449F3DAEB73C25690205F0FF27@XCH42YKF.rim.net> References: <4A2522B1.8070703@viagenie.ca> <777025D7F9E074449F3DAEB73C25690205F0FF27@XCH42YKF.rim.net> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 17:19:04 +0800 Message-ID: <1d38a3350906070219p525c7b98w3c24b3d44d77e32a@mail.gmail.com> From: Hui Deng To: Giyeong Son Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:19:03 -0000 Late comment I agree this point, , some people are doing something based on MIF environm= ent. -Hui 2009/6/2 Giyeong Son : > I agree with Pierrick. > > If multiple addresses on one admin domain does not have any concern from = the MIF perspective, it might be better to be more generalized. As a result= , we could prevent any circumstance of multiple addresses on one domain for= a host that is excluded in the MIF scope although practically MIF could co= ver it without any issues. > > Best Regards, > Giyeong > > -----Original Message----- > From: mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mar= c Blanchet > Sent: June 2, 2009 9:02 AM > To: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com > Cc: mif@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? > > pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com a =E9crit : >> Hi Marc, >> >> If b) is the scope of MIF, a) is also supported. Did I miss something? > > humm... > sure, b) includes a); but a) does not include b). But if you read further= down, I'm trying to scope MIF. Therefore, the questions were more about th= e set of characteristics, bound together, that define what a MIF host is. > > In other words, what I'm trying to do is define what is a MIF host, since= there was a lot of discussions before on what MIF is and is not. > The questions below were one partial way to scope what a MIF host is. > > Marc. > >> >> Regards, >> Pierrick >> >>> -----Message d'origine----- >>> De : mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de >>> Marc Blanchet Envoy=E9 : lundi 1 juin 2009 19:42 =C0 : mif@ietf.org Obj= et >>> : [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses? >>> >>> Hello, >>> =A0I've been updating the MIF PS draft. I'm trying to catch and >>> summarize the discussions, conclusions, concensus on the mailing list >>> and during the BOF. Most of the update is done now, but I just want >>> to clarify agreement on one topic. >>> >>> =A0Reading the mailing list, it is not clear to me if we agreed that >>> the scope of the MIF is: >>> a) multiple addresses on more than one interface (as presented to the >>> IP >>> stack) >>> b) multiple addresses on one or more interfaces >>> >>> here interface is a logical abstraction to the IP stack: i.e. maybe >>> virtual and/or physical. >>> >>> and somewhat orthogonal is also the admin domain >>> >>> 1) multiple addresses from more than one admin domain (/network) >>> 2) multiple addresses from one or more admin domain >>> >>> The charter talks about "attaching to multiple networks", with one >>> example as multiple default routers on the same link. >>> >>> Therefore, I'm thinking the agreement is b-1: >>> i.e. multiple addresses on one or more interfaces (as presented to >>> the IP stack) from more than one admin domain. >>> >>> Am I right? Am I scoping it correctly? >>> >>> If yes, does that exclude a-2?: multiple addresses on more than one >>> interface from one (or more) admin domain? >>> >>> Comments? >>> >>> Marc. >>> -- >>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>> IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn >>> server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news >>> service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mif mailing list >>> mif@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif > > > -- > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn ser= ver for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news service: ht= tp://reeves.viagenie.ca > > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential in= formation, privileged material (including material protected by the solicit= or-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public informa= tion. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipie= nt is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please i= mmediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system= . Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by= unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif > From phdgang@gmail.com Tue Jun 9 03:26:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1843A6B1A for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 03:26:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.352 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xIJ8YKqar+wl for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 03:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f181.google.com (mail-pz0-f181.google.com [209.85.222.181]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38ACF3A699A for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 03:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk11 with SMTP id 11so936135pzk.29 for ; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:26:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=nf/B2EP6grnnxxvhgOiBJSJSHvl712ffUjVERilCoKU=; b=dSjTCXrwzjh33dkHV/+Cg950BAUPKi2tqiPRlUcQx1lX2hcIKTlHcEs+tEGxjlUKKy BzJwffeNjIz3xYgIdPh3KFKUrk7/1necF90NDRdXuABEViqX8OcxqtfHux+atO9jy9lH lVoLJ9R+aBDKAE56QVCL5UvJrwy7+myPI5S50= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=YCh43h/HMDeV6eU7CIV0/mUS/Vdk4DW7E0Mi4aLCmlqq2R5f8QCeQdcYzp9cyN4rAx 4ID7a/1WK6lcOlqzWAaVk0MEM3ZebK+YQphFKbRtvAucPHZfLrJPgsm3GXjctpui4s1i 57XNwcCE9/sJTnRZuQSR2afq+iIyRjhrLzxzY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.204.11 with SMTP id b11mr2770106wfg.208.1244543164529; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:26:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A296A4F.5090407@viagenie.ca> References: <4A296A4F.5090407@viagenie.ca> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:26:04 +0800 Message-ID: <36ba02b00906090326l52403035he1cfe3cb4dcd890e@mail.gmail.com> From: =?GB2312?B?s8K41Q==?= To: Marc Blanchet Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd17c823abee4046be7c991 Cc: mif Subject: Re: [mif] [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt] X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:26:02 -0000 --000e0cd17c823abee4046be7c991 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable let me try to think based on 3GPP/WLAN/Fixed network, there are one case that 3GPP/WLAN could be under one administrative domain. the other possibility is that one home gatway could connect to multiple router in the network. -Gang 2009/6/6 Marc Blanchet > Hello, > new version of the draft, _trying_ to capture most of the comments on > the mailing list, bof, etc... Please comment. > > one of the discussions among authors is the following: > - is MIF scope restricted to: > a) one or more administrative domains > b) more than one administrative domains. > > My own opinion is b), while my co-author is a). > > Marc. > > -------- Message original -------- > Sujet : I-D Action:draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt > Date : Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:45:01 -0700 (PDT) > De : Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > R=A8=A6pondre =A8=A4 : internet-drafts@ietf.org > Pour : i-d-announce@ietf.org > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > Title : Multiple Interfaces Problem Statement > Author(s) : M. Blanchet, P. Seite > Filename : draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2009-06-05 > > A multihomed host receives node configuration information from each > of its access networks. Some configuration objects are global to the > node, some are local to the interface. Various issues arise when > multiple conflicting node-scoped configuration objects are received > on multiple interfaces. Similar situations also happen with single > interface host connected to multiple networks. This document > describes these issues. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-= 01.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > > > -- > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca > Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca > DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca > > > > > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif > > --=20 =B3=C2=B8=D5 phdgang@gmail.com --000e0cd17c823abee4046be7c991 Content-Type: text/html; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
let me try to think based on 3GPP/WLAN/Fixed network,
there are one case that 3GPP/WLAN could be under one administrative do= main.
 
the other possibility is that one home gatway could connect to multipl= e router in the network.
 
-Gang

2009/6/6 Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>=
Hello,
 new version of t= he draft, _trying_ to capture most of the comments on
the mailing list, = bof, etc... Please comment.

one of the discussions among authors is the following:
- is MIF scop= e restricted to:
a) one or more administrative domains
b) more than o= ne administrative domains.

My own opinion is b), while my co-author = is a).

Marc.

-------- Message original --------
Sujet : I-D Action:d= raft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt
Date : Fri,  5 Jun 2009 = 11:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
De : In= ternet-Drafts@ietf.org
R=A8=A6pondre =A8=A4 : internet= -drafts@ietf.org
Pour : i-d= -announce@ietf.org

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on= -line Internet-Drafts
directories.

       Title       &= nbsp;   : Multiple Interfaces Problem Statement
     = ;  Author(s)       : M. Blanchet, P. Seite
  &n= bsp;    Filename        : draft-blanchet-mif-= problem-statement-01.txt
       Pages     =       : 12
       Date            : = 2009-06-05

A multihomed host receives node configuration information= from each
of its access networks.  Some configuration objects are = global to the
node, some are local to the interface.  Various issue= s arise when
multiple conflicting node-scoped configuration objects are received
on m= ultiple interfaces.  Similar situations also happen with single
int= erface host connected to multiple networks.  This document
describe= s these issues.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-0= 1.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/in= ternet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compli= ant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Intern= et-Draft.


--
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
DTN news service: http://reeves.viagen= ie.ca




_______________________________________________
I= -D-Announce mailing list
I-D-An= nounce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/lis= tinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.or= g/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt


_______________________________________________
mif mailing list=
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/mif




--
=B3=C2=B8=D5
= phdgang@gmail.com
--000e0cd17c823abee4046be7c991-- From phdgang@gmail.com Tue Jun 9 03:31:36 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F9C3A6B8E for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 03:31:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.127 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RY8fQaS7XqG9 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 03:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87693A6B1A for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 03:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so1402163wff.31 for ; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:31:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RXyYrPCW+9QR5Px4kxqKukfFB7s8kC4Ron/diGeY240=; b=M5VgfCxEuDSWJXucqPCXpZbD3RwDoHVLzf4FbSTTMBs+Qk9ow9nHHXNDkaFOowSOR5 5Y2i8PRQ6n9I8n84YU17NCpWVRcQfDAdhKuFhxYkOVNe/7Vcjtcrh+6hd5lswhT07RWT t2OrE2RlJ/So/4SiViUhPraQEjn1zn5jARl5U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=i+JIuBSiwesmidAqfeSbpNJq4As490rzjkSFkYZWziQ49CBbRK/Qsck1/kG/tneaeq vsnudbDdljTpcUEnVA7Y98/5Ywrt5llSd8TvbSw9+XKBaYD/fREWC6XilqobFEFCWvRK JiMGylimMANNRrY8s+n3HAf18vlkPEuj4qpTM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.166.7 with SMTP id o7mr2974229wfe.97.1244543499873; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:31:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A26D5FD.6020806@viagenie.ca> References: <777025D7F9E074449F3DAEB73C25690205F0FF27@XCH42YKF.rim.net> <4A2532B5.1070007@viagenie.ca> <4A26D5FD.6020806@viagenie.ca> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:31:39 +0800 Message-ID: <36ba02b00906090331j44f916d7sb6b49b39ec474892@mail.gmail.com> From: =?GB2312?B?s8K41Q==?= To: Marc Blanchet Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd328a637af7a046be7dd82 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] mif host definition X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:31:36 -0000 --000e0cd328a637af7a046be7dd82 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > Doesn't this encompass all hosts > > on the Internet that have more than one address, including every IPv6 > > node and every IPv4 node with a loopback interface? > I thought the same thing when I removed the restriction on more than one > admin domain. I also feel that this sentence doesn't define any specific feature. -Gang --000e0cd328a637af7a046be7dd82 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> =A0Doesn't this encompass all hosts
> on t= he Internet that have more than one address, including every IPv6
> n= ode and every IPv4 node with a loopback interface?
I thought the s= ame thing when I removed the restriction on more than one
admin domain.
I also feel that this sentence doesn't define any specific feature= .
=A0
-Gang
--000e0cd328a637af7a046be7dd82-- From marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca Tue Jun 9 06:12:23 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B5828C19F for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 06:12:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.159 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.159 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.310, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EqeH2W4O4Uqd for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 06:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88DFD3A6CCD for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 06:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix, from userid 8) id 113DA29E15CF; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:12:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from h103.viagenie.ca (h103.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.103]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064BD29E159A; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:12:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4A2E5FB8.50002@viagenie.ca> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:12:24 -0400 From: Marc Blanchet User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?GB2312?B?s8K41Q==?= References: <4A296A4F.5090407@viagenie.ca> <36ba02b00906090326l52403035he1cfe3cb4dcd890e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <36ba02b00906090326l52403035he1cfe3cb4dcd890e@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: mif Subject: Re: [mif] [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt] X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:12:23 -0000 ³Â¸Õ a ¨¦crit : > let me try to think based on 3GPP/WLAN/Fixed network, > there are one case that 3GPP/WLAN could be under one administrative domain. > > the other possibility is that one home gatway could connect to multiple > router in the network. great! please provide text for the draft. Marc. > > -Gang > > 2009/6/6 Marc Blanchet > > > Hello, > new version of the draft, _trying_ to capture most of the comments on > the mailing list, bof, etc... Please comment. > > one of the discussions among authors is the following: > - is MIF scope restricted to: > a) one or more administrative domains > b) more than one administrative domains. > > My own opinion is b), while my co-author is a). > > Marc. > > -------- Message original -------- > Sujet : I-D Action:draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt > Date : Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:45:01 -0700 (PDT) > De : Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > R¨¦pondre ¨¤ : internet-drafts@ietf.org > Pour : i-d-announce@ietf.org > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > Title : Multiple Interfaces Problem Statement > Author(s) : M. Blanchet, P. Seite > Filename : draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2009-06-05 > > A multihomed host receives node configuration information from each > of its access networks. Some configuration objects are global to the > node, some are local to the interface. Various issues arise when > multiple conflicting node-scoped configuration objects are received > on multiple interfaces. Similar situations also happen with single > interface host connected to multiple networks. This document > describes these issues. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > > > -- > ========= > IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca > > Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca > > DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca > > > > > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft > > directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif > > > > > -- > ³Â¸Õ > phdgang@gmail.com -- ========= IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca From Aleksi.Suhonen@tut.fi Sun Jun 14 19:57:35 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 457763A68DE for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:57:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zqw4RiqWaCOG for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-gw2.cc.tut.fi (av-gw2.cc.tut.fi [130.230.130.111]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0359F3A6C32 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-gw2.cc.tut.fi (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by av-gw2.cc.tut.fi (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 3D08B150029 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:57:42 +0300 (EEST) X-AuditID: 82e6826f-ab597bb0000003e2-06-4a35b8a6470a Received: from mail.cc.tut.fi (unknown [130.230.1.120]) by av-gw2.cc.tut.fi (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 3849B900B6 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:57:42 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [130.230.52.50] (rotta.atm.tut.fi [130.230.52.50]) by mail.cc.tut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769B1A40F8 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:57:43 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4A35B8A7.104@tut.fi> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:57:43 +0300 From: Aleksi Suhonen Organization: Tampere University of Technology / Institute of Communications Engineering User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mif@ietf.org References: <5EBA85DF-FC90-4017-88F9-B59BF4BDB227@muada.com> In-Reply-To: <5EBA85DF-FC90-4017-88F9-B59BF4BDB227@muada.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [mif] A Suggestion for Address Selection X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:57:35 -0000 Hi, This is a request for comments on a draft for an internet draft on a new address selection algorithm that I'm developing as part of the Finnish Future Internet project. I'm trying to find a home working group for it, but I'm not finding it easy since it seems to affect so many things. Instead of sending the whole text on several mailing lists, I put the rough draft on the web: http://www.axu.tm/2009/draft-axu-addr-sel-pre00.html The motivation for this algorithm comes from multi-pathing protocols and the need for agile address re-selection when forced to reroute. Readers of the mif list may be especially interested in this algorithm because it handles multiple interfaces as a special case of multiple routers on a single interface, or vice versa, and handles source address validation issues in all cases. Sincerely awaiting your constructive feedback, -- Aleksi Suhonen Department of Communications Engineering Tampere University of Technology From teemu.savolainen@nokia.com Mon Jun 22 04:48:10 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A795E28C1C3 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:48:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.073 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.526, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MfETGHgGkDyB for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-mx09.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.105.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA8128C1BA for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id n5MBlfOm030946; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:48:23 -0500 Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.23]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:48:03 +0300 Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.22]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:47:45 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:47:40 +0300 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.86]) by nok-am1mhub-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) with mapi; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:47:40 +0200 From: To: Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:46:41 +0200 Thread-Topic: [mif] [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt] Thread-Index: AcnmD1UepZz1ywXmTK+LrF5J2f7yCANF/FeQ Message-ID: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F3A6FBF8D54@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <4A296A4F.5090407@viagenie.ca> In-Reply-To: <4A296A4F.5090407@viagenie.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2009 11:47:40.0395 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F125BB0:01C9F32F] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt] X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:48:10 -0000 Hi Marc, My opinion is for a) as well. Some comments to I-D: - Reference of [I-D.savolainen-6man-fqdn-based-if-selection] (in references= and also in chapter 4) is to an old version, please change in next revisio= n to: draft-savolainen-mif-dns-server-selection (February 2009). - 3.3. Says mobility etc. mechanisms are not required. Would it add clarity= if this would describe that the host may implement mobility technologies, = and for MIF those may or may not show as virtual interfaces? The particular= case I'm thinking is that if a multi-homed host is running DSMIP6 it would= result in one new interface (addresses) MIF needs to choose from. E.g. a n= ew flow could be created from the physical IP address (the same DSMIP6 is u= sing as CoA) or by using the HoA. Maybe:"If a host implements additional mo= bility or multihoming protocols, those may be seen as additional virtual in= terfaces, IP addresses, to choose from." ? - 4.1. 3-case: even if the IP address learned from S2 would be for "physica= lly" correct destination server, the server may be configured to provide di= fferent set of services for connections coming from Internet or Intranet. I= mean this problem may be a security problem, but it may also be service re= achability problem. - What about following two additions to 4.1: 4. S1 or S2 has been used to resolve "a.private.example.com" to an RFC1918 = address. Both N1 and N2 are RFC1918 addressed networks. IPv4 source address= selection may face challenges, as due address overlapping the source/desti= nation IP addresses do not necessarily provide enough information for makin= g proper address selection decisions. 5. H1 has filled its DNS cache from information received from S1. H1 opens = network connection to N2, which becomes more favored interface. However, th= e information learned from S1 may not be valid on communications inititated= over N2.=20 Best regards, =09 Teemu >-----Original Message----- >From: mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 >Behalf Of ext Marc Blanchet >Sent: 05 June, 2009 21:56 >To: mif >Subject: [mif] [Fwd: I-D=20 >Action:draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt] > >Hello, > new version of the draft, _trying_ to capture most of the=20 >comments on the mailing list, bof, etc... Please comment. > >one of the discussions among authors is the following: >- is MIF scope restricted to: >a) one or more administrative domains >b) more than one administrative domains. > >My own opinion is b), while my co-author is a). > >Marc. > >-------- Message original -------- >Sujet : I-D Action:draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt >Date : Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:45:01 -0700 (PDT) De :=20 >Internet-Drafts@ietf.org R=E9pondre =E0 : internet-drafts@ietf.org=20 >Pour : i-d-announce@ietf.org > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line=20 >Internet-Drafts directories. > > Title : Multiple Interfaces Problem Statement > Author(s) : M. Blanchet, P. Seite > Filename : draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2009-06-05 > >A multihomed host receives node configuration information from=20 >each of its access networks. Some configuration objects are=20 >global to the node, some are local to the interface. Various=20 >issues arise when multiple conflicting node-scoped=20 >configuration objects are received on multiple interfaces. =20 >Similar situations also happen with single interface host=20 >connected to multiple networks. This document describes these issues. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blanchet-mif-problem- >statement-01.txt > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail=20 >reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII=20 >version of the Internet-Draft. > > >-- >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca=20 >Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal:=20 >http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca > >=