Hi Pierrick,

Thanks for your comments, excuse me for late reply, inline = please,

From:= = mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = pierrick.seite@orange.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 = 11:01 PM
To: 'Hui Deng'; Brian E Carpenter
Cc: = mif@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mif] = draft-deng-mif-api-session-continuity-guide-02

Hi Hui,

I’ve just gone through this draft and I think it is a good = start. In this I-D, the MIF just exposes the list of available IP = connection to the application which is supposed to make the = selection of the preferred interface. Triggers for selection process are = IP connectivity coming up or going down. That’s one valid = use-case, but I guess there are another which would be worth to = cover.

For example, it is said that the application can switch over = interface without disrupting communications. Here I guess that, = implicitly, we assume an IP address change ant that the application can = survive to this IP address change. That’s ok, but not all = applications can switch over interface without disrupting communication, = and additional mechanisms may come into play (e.g. IP mobility = management).

=3D=3D > You are right, not all of them, it depends on = what’s the definition of session continuity, IP mobility use = virtual interface to guarantee the session continuity should be mention = in this document, thanks for pointing out.

Also, in steps 5/section 4, it is said that the application could = make the decision to turn off the interface. But sometimes it cannot be = as simple as this; for example, what if another application is using the = interface at the same time… kind of coordination is required here. = So, maybe it would be useful to identify concrete use-cases and describe = the use of MIF API with respect to these use-cases. =

=3D=3D > I think your point is valid, application should not = switch off the interface, we may prompt to the user check whether it = need to be switched off?

Then, the text refers to the decision process for selecting a new = interface based on policy or user preferences. I agree that the decision = process is not part of the MIF API; typically it may be in the scope of = the high-level API we have sometimes evoked (typically, in the OMA = workshop during last IEF meeting ). If I remember well, during IETF83, = we said that it would be good to document such high-level API as well; = is it still in the TODO list of the WG?

=3D=3D > MIF wg=A0 is open for new submission like high level = api

Another thing that comes to my mind: mapping dynamically an IP flow = to an interface, as suggested in the draft, might have an impact = on the terminal policy table. IMHO, it could be a function of the MIF = API to update routing table according to application decision, what do = you think?

=3D=3D > I thought the status of interface information could = update the routing table, other MIF API itself, you may comment on the = MIF API draft

BTW, I’d suggest to swap steps #1 and #2 in both sections 4 and = 5. It is better to subscribe to MIF API notifications before attaching = to an interface; so that the application can fetch the list of = available interfaces before selecting one.

=3D=3D > Would like to hear the comments from WG. Will = see.

Thanks a lot for your kind review

Best regards,

-Hui

Br,

Pierrick

De : mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] = De la part de Hui Deng
Envoy=E9 : mercredi 18 = juillet 2012 08:33
=C0 : Brian E = Carpenter
Cc : mif@ietf.org
Objet : Re: = [mif] = draft-deng-mif-api-session-continuity-guide-02

Hi Brian

Thanks for your review this draft, = inline please,

2012/7/17 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>

Hi,

If the interface = changes I can understand how this works from the
application's point = of view: it discovers experimentally whether it has
a working path = via the new interface. Nothing new there, = really.

There is small percentage of = applications know about this experimentation which lead =

to = some poor user experience.

If the host's address = changes too, I don't find the discussion in
section 3 very helpful. = Saying that the application ought to be able
to handle this really = says nothing. And of course there are other
approaches possible, by = having either the transport layer or the
network layer handle it. We = have at least three existence proofs for
such solutions (SCTP, MPTCP = and shim6). They all need tweaking for the
case of a brand-new = address being added, and 6renum needs that = tweak
too.

Application use MIF api to handel this = is useful information for the = application.

and section 4 and 5 clarify detail how to help this. today = many OS/connection manager's

concrete API already provide such = MIF API, if use those API, it really help = applications.

SCTP/MPTCP/shim6 are more adding = additional intelligent to Mobile/OS, the = document

discussed here could work together with MIF/CM API by = not tweaking the OS stack

A related point is that load = balancers at the server end are part
of the problem too, if you want = to preserve sessions across a
re-addressing = event.

this document doesn't talk about load balancer, because = re-connect means a create a new = session

which load balance will treat this is a normal new session = without need to keep the state.

Thanks again for the = discussion

Best = regards,

-Hui

I think section 3 is just the = tip of a very complicated iceberg.

Regards
= Brian

_______________________________________________mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

_______________________________________________________________=
__________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des =
informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent =
donc

pas etre diffuses, =
exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par =
erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. =
Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles =
d'alteration,

France Telecom =
- Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, =
deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This =
message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged =
information that may be protected by =
law;

they should not be =
distributed, used or copied without =
authorisation.

If you have =
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this =
message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not =
liable for messages that have been modified, changed or =
falsified.

Thank =
you.

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01CD705E.AF384670-- From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Wed Aug 1 13:37:58 2012 Return-Path: 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 A2E2311E82A9 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:37:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.955 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.356, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 539fvol31ezZ for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B5211E829D for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so8374722ghb.31 for ; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:37:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gdTU2WhmTCjkgE3n6+P++MmefKrpDNbfQOclROhcRyo=; b=esxqG8IPwGMfD3CyLoCYAK07e5ubxGdAb7Q/5KCzwvE5Jd1o3LEVJWjNfh8phjACSa rQ0xVeq7aMrpHKQ6NsgCDA6D+8QPqfy9uo78QO2dCpJUGOVyErIRrUqzh2ArlrNj4Dc5 MxX0sqF1Fd+H6AM3TvH/sysya53T/FFIq2RUmeQmnq+ZZKqIbh/RUdX9y9BEdoNr1t1r do+MofixfOOEAMiabI3fzp2wK38lpMJJZNl1NEItB4NvIe8FLggDH6qY66usuK3JqTrY 7/Ovs7WF7XbNJRdssqzOZ2qcj4gc+kbxnmF9Exng1VdRkgQ3FvUztpMZ3QddgcyZq/Rz OTOw== Received: by 10.66.87.66 with SMTP id v2mr42251274paz.71.1343853477363; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:37:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.19.61] (dhcp-133d.meeting.ietf.org. [130.129.19.61]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id qx9sm3240371pbc.8.2012.08.01.13.37.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:37:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5019939C.6050505@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:37:48 -0700 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mif Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [mif] Issue MAC address for IP of default route draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org 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: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:37:58 -0000 >> MAC address not configured >> >> Answer: it doesn�t need to be. MAC derived via ND. > > This is not what was said on the email list, and even less at the > mic. On the mailing list, the range of comments were from "no MAC" to > "maybe MAC". To me the latter seemed more agreed. Do you think it is worth adding this issue to the issue tracker? This was discussed publicly March 2012. There were like 3-to-1 suggestions against this. There may have been private discussions as well - I dont know. In this context - do you think it is still useful fo file for an issue on the issue tracker? Alex From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Wed Aug 1 14:11:46 2012 Return-Path: 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 3935811E8295 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:11:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4PzFMeQy30Mv for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29CAA11E8256 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so8413379ghb.31 for ; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:11:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=2zEr8qF/J8v83/tncOhpoJpwGWdFeHqUtzi4cJlyKYQ=; b=cANTETElNrGg2ZLgKPXghMM8usMaQDHDqct+jlKkjl3pcZ6w+5+DD56zbz0/UgnBqD wd2jdlW7w+RiseMooEt7lvXBr32y355yrgFlVvQ9v+s35dC+gjBAtV/FR0nmc3cvtmuC /GkfOcSbIobQWdDZh6PUh5VINkroFVkRDncflLsguLjBvC97BhyN9VamWUhndKxQxPGi sR2/Zu4KNDz8t4wGDLWLnPvpdITjHGj6feMGztM8gzQZbokHnZKyRsVKESXOLSCuz8Kd KrfLnp206ovTAWxaVXM1EfasGdSR0wzzd+EvMssLVw+c3y+YfEXG9SaLkxjgmPoIaFZd t08Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.183.200 with SMTP id eo8mr5387488igc.63.1343855504571; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.207.167 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:11:44 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Ted Lemon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:11:46 -0000 Hi Ted, In one of your slides you showed today, you showed that on one interface there are 2 networks. Is selecting one network versus the other part of this API work? Regards, Behcet From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Wed Aug 1 14:29:36 2012 Return-Path: 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 8223D21F8A24 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:29:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.554 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RaFSlo00A-WC for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDBEE21F8A1F for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:29:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so8464296ggn.31 for ; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:29:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tihH78aKEUcqn2rBhjD9JKr2hqJMVxHwZBh6eO9Qq8Y=; b=h8o17O9o52GV9fC9XreTBwMFXIK+/k9Wm3677aHg64Oj8UHAYH0xQkn0C7vetQzNbZ M6Hd2SbRr0SeVsiCslKAnKV5LNUjjFANunAS8u5X5dJbwrsuygu5slKeRkOCVtlosKCx ILTZgN96yVH4qHyXLKjqZPr/X8q/4RxOi8KnvIIaCyT5f3RroY+v2UGK/3TaQ+xl66tz +F+9eDVu+PcFD3k2YUmzb0X/Z6fN0rOc0J/n8aOdrdOunPQ40cGw7OqdZe0RK1U/vUzA IsD3hyozEcd32ohZOEW+btkz24Y8mhNFey8vL/2+f+QHSQi3CpytmbcsuXKDaOMJoi8K /46w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.17.230 with SMTP id r6mr6723715igd.63.1343856574738; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:29:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.207.167 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:29:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <086FCD42-FC16-4F24-8032-7F763731BB2B@nominum.com> References: <086FCD42-FC16-4F24-8032-7F763731BB2B@nominum.com> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:29:34 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Ted Lemon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:29:36 -0000 Hi Ted, On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Aug 1, 2012, at 2:11 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > Is selecting one network versus the other part of this API work? > > > By "network" do you mean something like two access points, or do you mean > two interfaces? Yes, it could be multiple APs or Base Stations. >The expectation is that we will attempt to use any network > we are actually connected to. The connection manager is responsible for > choosing which access point to connect to, Where is connection manager specified? a Mif document? > and until that decision is made, > we aren't connected to a network on that interface from the perspective of > the MIF API. Similarly for a wireline connection in a market where more > than one provider shares the wireline. > Regards, Behcet From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Wed Aug 1 15:02:37 2012 Return-Path: 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 B281611E836D for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:02:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bC44-g6z9hF4 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA15F11E8195 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUBmnfD/KwFv5XQ8ZHKB/GFV6nCrXasBj@postini.com; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:02:36 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA0911B830D for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:02:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE58119005D; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:02:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:02:35 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: "" , Behcet Sarikaya Thread-Topic: MIF API - Access Network Selection Thread-Index: AQHNcCpCx3vi/hqDfku3VfHWCfpMfZdF6s2AgAADtACAAAk5gA== Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 22:02:34 +0000 Message-ID: <037E6537-B7EF-449A-8581-864C798171A2@nominum.com> References: <086FCD42-FC16-4F24-8032-7F763731BB2B@nominum.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_037E6537B7EF449A8581864C798171A2nominumcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [mif] MIF API - Access Network Selection X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org 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: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:02:37 -0000 --_000_037E6537B7EF449A8581864C798171A2nominumcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Aug 1, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: Where is connection manager specified? a Mif document? I think that the MIF API sets a baseline for what the connection manager ha= s to be able to do. I think that a single connection manager spec from th= e MIF working group would be presumptuous, because the precise functioning = of the connection manager is really something that's core to the business o= f a lot of customers of the MIF API. So as long as the connection manager= implementation supports the functionality required by the MIF API, I don't= think we should try to go any further than that. --_000_037E6537B7EF449A8581864C798171A2nominumcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <76F39F093F2EF74081D2B141FF638C48@nominum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Aug 1, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

Where is connection manager specified? a Mif document?

I think that the MIF API sets a baseline for what the connection manag= er has to be able to do. I think that a single connection manager sp= ec from the MIF working group would be presumptuous, because the precise fu= nctioning of the connection manager is really something that's core to the business of a lot of customers of the = MIF API. So as long as the connection manager implementation support= s the functionality required by the MIF API, I don't think we should try to= go any further than that.

--_000_037E6537B7EF449A8581864C798171A2nominumcom_-- From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:00:33 2012 Return-Path: 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 C377A21F869E for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:00:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MO7WE+aBcDpu for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:00:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133CD21F874A for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:00:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53834 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Swg1a-0006gP-8i; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:00:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:00:10 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/5 Message-ID: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 5 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: [mif] #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:00:34 -0000 #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) Dear participants in MIF WG, Currently draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 specifies that only one default route to be configured by the DHCPv6 Server for a particular client. draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 says: " Server MUST NOT define more than one default route." I do not know why this is so? In our implementation the DHCP Server delivers a list of default routes to the Client (draft-mouton...) Also, ND configures a list of default routes on the same link. I find it a bit bizarre that in this group's context the Server is required so strongly to configure a single default route no more. I wanted to ask the oppinion of the group about this. -- ----------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: multiple default routes ----------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:02:17 2012 Return-Path: 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 DBD7621F8939 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:02:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bs--2g2NGXQK for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6F621F8938 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54013 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Swg3L-0005oL-H9; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:01:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option@tools.ietf.org, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:01:59 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/6 Message-ID: <066.e35f70c3071e8e9dfdd91da6a8a4f719@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 6 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option@tools.ietf.org, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: sarikaya@ieee.org, suntao@chinamobile.com, tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com, wdec@cisco.com Resent-Message-Id: <20120801210217.0C6F621F8938@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: [mif] #6: Lifetime field length should be 16bit for ND compatibility X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:02:18 -0000 #6: Lifetime field length should be 16bit for ND compatibility Currently draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 specifies that the lifetime of a route (and implicitely of a default route) is to be 32bit length field. On another hand, the currently implemented default routes are implemented according to ND Neighbor Discovery, which uses route_r_ lifetime on 16bit (RFC 4861 search "Router Lifetime"). I think this is an issue. It generates additional work to the implementer. If one agrees that it is good to store the DHCP default route in the existing ND data structures, then one notices a conversion is needed. If these lifetime fields were expressed in the same number of bits (preferably 16bit, because that exists already) then the implementer would be relieved from conversion work. -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route- alexandru.petrescu@… | option@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: dhcpv6 | Version: -route-option | Keywords: Severity: In WG Last | Call | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:02:48 2012 Return-Path: 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 64C8011E82B9 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:02:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KLZi87lMRntV for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:02:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF9011E819B for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54168 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Swg43-00042f-Es; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:02:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option@tools.ietf.org, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:02:43 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/6#comment:1 Message-ID: <081.c670fac7d9370b66ce59b0adb7067ae0@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.e35f70c3071e8e9dfdd91da6a8a4f719@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 6 In-Reply-To: <066.e35f70c3071e8e9dfdd91da6a8a4f719@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option@tools.ietf.org, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: sarikaya@ieee.org, suntao@chinamobile.com, tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com, wdec@cisco.com Resent-Message-Id: <20120801210247.CAF9011E819B@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #6: Lifetime field length should be 16bit for ND compatibility X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:02:48 -0000 #6: Lifetime field length should be 16bit for ND compatibility Changes (by alexandru.petrescu@…): * cc: alexandru.petrescu@… (added) -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route- alexandru.petrescu@… | option@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: dhcpv6 | Version: -route-option | Resolution: Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:04:51 2012 Return-Path: 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 8251D11E819B for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:04:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c9GCpdCooOfR for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8F711E82E8 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54393 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Swg61-0003ZJ-ID; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:04:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:04:45 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/7 Message-ID: <066.9d7eed31ed06e24e5ff47bd92f3e3f49@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 7 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: [mif] #7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:04:51 -0000 #7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route- option-04 Currently draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 specifies a way for the DHCPv6 Server to communicate a set of routes to the DHCPv6 Client. This covers both specific routes and the particular case of default routes (a default route is meant when the RT_PREFIX option is absent, or alternatively by using 128 0 bits as RT_PREFIX). I think this is an issue. It's not good to have two different things to achieve the same functionality. Second, using default routes in the same option type of specific routes means that they'd share the same faith - if specific routes are wrongly configured in the same section of the config file, there is a risk that the default route is wrongly configured too. Or, the default route is something of last resort, so it would be better to have it configured in a different place, communicated with a different ORO type. Third, if a single way of configuring default an specific routes with DHCP then this means that a bigger software implementation would be needed even for lightweight devices. Or, lightweight devices only use a single route - the default route. I suggest we separate the default route ORO from the specific routes ORO. -- ----------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: trivial | Milestone: Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: ----------------------------------+-------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:07:24 2012 Return-Path: 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 83A4E11E8295 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:07:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X60-7u8Fd0Nt for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6DF411E82E8 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54483 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Swg8W-0005wh-PV; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:07:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:07:20 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/5#comment:1 Message-ID: <081.d84953eb03536c789c3dace7a3851b77@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 5 In-Reply-To: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:07:24 -0000 #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) Changes (by alexandru.petrescu@…): * cc: alexandru.petrescu@… (added) -- -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: multiple default routes | -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:09:07 2012 Return-Path: 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 CC2CC21F86F7 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:09:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L-e0aw7iZr-I for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D72F21F86F5 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54498 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgAD-000864-Tt; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:09:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:09:05 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/7#comment:1 Message-ID: <081.fe978f63e2755ea82a52874cc29173a4@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.9d7eed31ed06e24e5ff47bd92f3e3f49@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 7 In-Reply-To: <066.9d7eed31ed06e24e5ff47bd92f3e3f49@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:09:07 -0000 #7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route- option-04 Changes (by alexandru.petrescu@…): * cc: alexandru.petrescu@… (added) -- ----------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: trivial | Milestone: Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ----------------------------------+--------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:14:30 2012 Return-Path: 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 BDF2511E8295 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:14:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oxS9bujx67Vo for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F94B11E8256 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54921 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgFM-00016Q-5x; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:14:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option@tools.ietf.org, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:14:24 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/8 Message-ID: <066.d23b6cc424b4cc602066c868d7800e4b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 8 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option@tools.ietf.org, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: sarikaya@ieee.org, suntao@chinamobile.com, tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com, wdec@cisco.com Resent-Message-Id: <20120801211430.0F94B11E8256@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: [mif] #8: absent MAC address of default route? X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:14:31 -0000 #8: absent MAC address of default route? Currently draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 specifies the DHCPv6 Server to communicate some route to the DHCPv6 Client. In the particular case of default route, the existing mechanism to achieve this is ND. This has the optional feature to communicate the MAC address of the default router at the same time. This saves on the number of messages exchanged (instead of 4 messages, only 2 are used). In the same manner, it would be useful to have DHCPv6 way of communicating the default route to add the MAC address of the IP address of the default router. This would save on the number of messages exchanged. -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route- alexandru.petrescu@… | option@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: dhcpv6 | Version: -route-option | Keywords: Severity: In WG Last | Call | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:16:35 2012 Return-Path: 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 7637111E832A for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:16:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id skQOGVAdFi9j for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B770D11E8295 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55003 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgHO-0002Aq-9D; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:16:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option@tools.ietf.org, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:16:30 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/8#comment:1 Message-ID: <081.86f1ea5bfb75f8504f3eb69581ef739d@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.d23b6cc424b4cc602066c868d7800e4b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 8 In-Reply-To: <066.d23b6cc424b4cc602066c868d7800e4b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option@tools.ietf.org, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: sarikaya@ieee.org, suntao@chinamobile.com, tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com, wdec@cisco.com Resent-Message-Id: <20120801211634.B770D11E8295@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #8: absent MAC address of default route? X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:16:35 -0000 #8: absent MAC address of default route? Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…): > In the particular case of default route, the existing mechanism to > achieve this is ND. This has the optional feature to communicate the > MAC address of the default router at the same time. This saves on the > number of messages exchanged (instead of 4 messages, only 2 are used). In environments where this is a significant amount of additional traffic, presumably ND will be the preferred mechanism for delivering the default route. > In the same manner, it would be useful to have DHCPv6 way of > communicating the default route to add the MAC address of the IP address > of the default router. This would save on the number of messages exchanged. I think this is an unnecessary optimization. What's the use case where both ND is not preferred, and bandwidth is so constrained as to make this a problem? -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route- alexandru.petrescu@… | option@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: dhcpv6 | Version: -route-option | Resolution: Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:17:16 2012 Return-Path: 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 AE73411E8314 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:17:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id td+Uq+J9tB98 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF2A11E8295 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55024 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgI2-0001iJ-49; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:17:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option@tools.ietf.org, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:17:10 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/8#comment:2 Message-ID: <081.57457fd33fd78216714153318b0b695a@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.d23b6cc424b4cc602066c868d7800e4b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 8 In-Reply-To: <066.d23b6cc424b4cc602066c868d7800e4b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option@tools.ietf.org, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: sarikaya@ieee.org, suntao@chinamobile.com, tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com, wdec@cisco.com Resent-Message-Id: <20120801211715.CAF2A11E8295@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #8: absent MAC address of default route? X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:17:16 -0000 #8: absent MAC address of default route? Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…): On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > In the same manner, it would be useful to have DHCPv6 way of > communicating the default route to add the MAC address of the IP address > of the default router. This would save on the number of messages exchanged. > > I wanted to ask the oppinion of the WG on this particular topic, thank you. Hi Alexandru, If added, I think it should be non-authoritative. That is, the receiving host can use it briefly to get a jump start on communication but is expected to promptly perform an ND request for the authoritative MAC. This would allow a host to recover gracefully in the inevitable event that the DHCP server and router get out of sync about the router's MAC address. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route- alexandru.petrescu@… | option@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: dhcpv6 | Version: -route-option | Resolution: Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:17:46 2012 Return-Path: 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 8E56811E8314 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:17:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44YDkzxDGHuf for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46CDF11E8295 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55040 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgIO-0002Xv-OY; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:17:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option@tools.ietf.org, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:17:32 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/8#comment:3 Message-ID: <081.a890ee5825258efe87b2d388ce0c3533@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.d23b6cc424b4cc602066c868d7800e4b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 8 In-Reply-To: <066.d23b6cc424b4cc602066c868d7800e4b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option@tools.ietf.org, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: sarikaya@ieee.org, suntao@chinamobile.com, tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com, wdec@cisco.com Resent-Message-Id: <20120801211744.46CDF11E8295@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #8: absent MAC address of default route? X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:17:47 -0000 #8: absent MAC address of default route? Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…): On 2012-03-28 06:46, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: ... > In lightweight environments, and this is a MIF-ed router not host, it > would only run DHCP and maybe no ND You can't conform to IPv6 and not run ND. In answer to your original question: no. KISS. Don't overload DHCPv6 with a function that is part of IPv6's basic mechanism (i.e. ND). Brian -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route- alexandru.petrescu@… | option@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: dhcpv6 | Version: -route-option | Resolution: Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:17:53 2012 Return-Path: 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 B80A111E833D for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:17:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9wbk65Fp0ywo for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C28B11E8295 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55054 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgIe-0000aW-LX; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:17:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option@tools.ietf.org, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:17:48 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/8#comment:4 Message-ID: <081.67f12c7fd49665dc06b7bfce2783f32e@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.d23b6cc424b4cc602066c868d7800e4b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 8 In-Reply-To: <066.d23b6cc424b4cc602066c868d7800e4b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option@tools.ietf.org, alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: sarikaya@ieee.org, suntao@chinamobile.com, tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com, wdec@cisco.com Resent-Message-Id: <20120801211753.0C28B11E8295@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #8: absent MAC address of default route? X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:17:53 -0000 #8: absent MAC address of default route? Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…): On 12-03-28 00:24, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2012-03-28 06:46, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > ... >> In lightweight environments, and this is a MIF-ed router not host, it >> would only run DHCP and maybe no ND > > You can't conform to IPv6 and not run ND. > > In answer to your original question: no. KISS. Don't overload DHCPv6 > with a function that is part of IPv6's basic mechanism (i.e. ND). +1 (Actually, all co-authors agree, so theoretically that is +4, but please count it as my personal opinion only). Tomek _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route- alexandru.petrescu@… | option@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: dhcpv6 | Version: -route-option | Resolution: Severity: In WG Last | Call | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:19:02 2012 Return-Path: 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 82B5011E833A for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:19:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RgEAh4wBZ2Hy for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C5811E8339 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55090 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgJo-0002AX-13; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:19:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:19:00 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/5#comment:2 Message-ID: <081.8b4d91855e0d4bf3072fa6f3e6b88ff4@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 5 In-Reply-To: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:19:02 -0000 #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…): On 03/27/2012 03:31 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > In our implementation the DHCP Server delivers a list of default routes > to the Client (draft-mouton...) Also, ND configures a list of default > routes on the same link. Is also the following configuration out of scope for this group? - a home network with TWO ISP's providing connection - both without knowledge of each other - both send default and specific route(s) (RA or DHCP) IMHO, my home desktop should really be able to handle this too (router selection needs to consider which source address was picked from which router). _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif -- -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: multiple default routes | -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:19:20 2012 Return-Path: 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 B23B811E8345 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:19:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LlVPunsIPxrt for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:19:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECDFF11E832A for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55109 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgK6-0005NA-K1; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:19:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:19:18 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/5#comment:3 Message-ID: <081.b3d9fb104844c427f979791a8b2f723d@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 5 In-Reply-To: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:19:20 -0000 #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…): > IMHO, my home desktop should really be able to handle > this too (router selection needs to consider which source > address was picked from which router). I think this is some of the stuff that 6man has been discussing. _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif -- -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: multiple default routes | -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:19:34 2012 Return-Path: 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 C9B2111E832A for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:19:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yv4VwsaP+acw for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160B811E8322 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55121 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgKK-0006G4-DW; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:19:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:19:32 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/5#comment:4 Message-ID: <081.eb2c3cf6a2fb794938056e1e1108ebf3@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 5 In-Reply-To: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:19:35 -0000 #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…): On 27 March 2012 13:50, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Le 27/03/2012 15:45, Erik Kline a écrit : > >>> IMHO, my home desktop should really be able to handle >>> this too (router selection needs to consider which source >>> address was picked from which router). >> >> >> I think this is some of the stuff that 6man has been discussing. > > > Do you think that discussion may have concluded that it's not good to have > several default routes on the Client? The discussion I'm referring to is about updating the source address selection depending on the next hop. This is obviously a more complicated issue overall, of course. Unless you get it right, you're likely to run afoul of BCP38. -- -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: multiple default routes | -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:19:57 2012 Return-Path: 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 239B611E8339 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:19:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5-OiiHqabh+v for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4671411E8322 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55141 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgKg-00086P-UE; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:19:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:19:54 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/5#comment:5 Message-ID: <081.31756fb961d2077ff841eb442fdc6147@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 5 In-Reply-To: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:19:57 -0000 #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…): > Is also the following configuration out of scope for this group? > - a home network with TWO ISP's providing connection > - both without knowledge of each other > - both send default and specific route(s) (RA or DHCP) > IMHO, my home desktop should really be able to handle > this too (router selection needs to consider which source > address was picked from which router). Yes, this seems to be in scope to me. I think you should submit a draft, since you've described both the problem and the solution quite well. You are describing the "two provisioning domains" scenario, FWIW. _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif -- -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: multiple default routes | -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:20:32 2012 Return-Path: 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 9E68411E8350 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:20:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wOVTeydczjt1 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC75311E8339 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55236 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgLE-0002BI-KV; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:20:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:20:28 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/5#comment:6 Message-ID: <081.cc426619847b01a7475feecf57d9d9f3@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 5 In-Reply-To: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:20:32 -0000 #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…): On 27 March 2012 15:33, Ted Lemon wrote: >> Submit to 6man, I think. > > Thanks for telling us your opinion, Erik. Is there a reason behind the opinion, or did it just spring into your mind like a tiny, perfect flower? I was thinking of the RFC3484bis work going on right now. If there are changes that are needed there, it should get reviewed by the same group reviewing those other changes right now, yes? It would be a shame if the two I-Ds crossed in flight, but obviously not the end of the world. _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif -- -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: multiple default routes | -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:20:43 2012 Return-Path: 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 C597511E8357 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:20:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8j096rOmPe95 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A97211E8350 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55258 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgLR-0003EU-Mn; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:20:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:20:41 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/5#comment:7 Message-ID: <081.7ed2528901209ee2ba8a97195be30da4@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 5 In-Reply-To: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:20:44 -0000 #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…): On 2012-03-28 04:30, Erik Kline wrote: > On 27 March 2012 15:26, Ted Lemon wrote: >>> Is also the following configuration out of scope for this group? >>> - a home network with TWO ISP's providing connection >>> - both without knowledge of each other >>> - both send default and specific route(s) (RA or DHCP) >>> IMHO, my home desktop should really be able to handle >>> this too (router selection needs to consider which source >>> address was picked from which router). >> Yes, this seems to be in scope to me. I think you should submit a draft, since you've described both the problem and the solution quite well. You are describing the "two provisioning domains" scenario, FWIW. The phrase "more than one default route" on its own makes my head hurt, given the normal meaning in computer science of the word "default". One default route per source prefix in use makes perfect sense, in view of the need for address pair selection and ingress-filtering avoidance. (When I think about it, a default route even makes sense for a ULA prefix.) > Submit to 6man, I think. Clearly - the customers for this include MIF, homenet and shim6 to name only three. Brian Brian _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif -- -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: multiple default routes | -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:21:01 2012 Return-Path: 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 7684B11E8339 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:21:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id amSxWuKvodoT for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F29611E8322 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55275 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgLj-0004aW-9p; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:20:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:20:59 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/5#comment:8 Message-ID: <081.3d9ddf1e98fa03a61d304b3c8c73f26a@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 5 In-Reply-To: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:21:01 -0000 #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…): On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 00:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote: The phrase "more than one default route" on its own makes my head hurt, given the normal meaning in computer science of the word "default". One default route per source prefix in use makes perfect sense, in view of the need for address pair selection and ingress-filtering avoidance. (When I think about it, a default route even makes sense for a ULA prefix.) No, multiple default routes make sense even when they're not source- specific. For example, they make sense when you have two routers and one of them can go down. Remember that a route includes a next-hop, and that RFC 4861 defines a default router list (which is a list of possible next- hops for the default route). _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif -- -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: multiple default routes | -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:21:21 2012 Return-Path: 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 915F611E835C for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:21:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9uvXY5h1NRrh for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:21:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4147611E8377 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:21:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55292 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgM2-0006qL-IN; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:21:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:21:18 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/5#comment:9 Message-ID: <081.e9b6021cc9087285097c1b0e50c18a1f@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 5 In-Reply-To: <066.e7ab587a28a110b750f149a32ad4c783@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:21:21 -0000 #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG) Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…): On 2012-03-28 21:33, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 00:16, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The phrase "more than one default route" on its own makes my head hurt, >> given the normal meaning in computer science of the word "default". >> >> One default route per source prefix in use makes perfect sense, in view >> of the need for address pair selection and ingress-filtering avoidance. >> (When I think about it, a default route even makes sense for a ULA prefix.) > > > No, multiple default routes make sense even when they're not > source-specific. For example, they make sense when you have two routers and > one of them can go down. Remember that a route includes a next-hop, and > that RFC 4861 defines a default router list (which is a list of possible > next-hops for the default route). Fair enough, although if we were starting again there might be a better way of doing it. Brian _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif -- -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: multiple default routes | -------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:23:53 2012 Return-Path: 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 022D611E8377 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:23:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MG+Pe-KWA4Vw for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5240B11E835C for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55620 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SwgOU-0001lv-Qi; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:23:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "mif issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: mif Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:23:50 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mif/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/7#comment:2 Message-ID: <081.5b55f2f41a2380ed43a0beaa73589e45@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <066.9d7eed31ed06e24e5ff47bd92f3e3f49@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 7 In-Reply-To: <066.9d7eed31ed06e24e5ff47bd92f3e3f49@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com, mif@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:26:40 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] #7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:23:53 -0000 #7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route- option-04 Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…): > Second, using default routes in the same option type of specific routes > means that they'd share the same faith - if specific routes are wrongly > configured in the same section of the config file, there is a risk that > the default route is wrongly configured too. Or, the default route is > something of last resort, so it would be better to have it configured in > a different place, communicated with a different ORO type. Operationally it is always better for things to completely fail than to partially fail, because you see the problem immediately. In the case of a DHCP server configuration problem, it's hard to see why it would be easier to misconfigure a DHCP server when there is a single option than when there are two. > Third, if a single way of configuring default an specific routes with > DHCP then this means that a bigger software implementation would be > needed even for lightweight devices. Or, lightweight devices only use a > single route - the default route. Do you know of any specific devices that have this problem? > I suggest we separate the default route ORO from the specific routes ORO. I think this is a good way to solve the problem you have described, but I don't think the problem needs to be solved. I'd be interested to hear a specific, concrete use case for this. -- ----------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: alexandru.petrescu@… | Owner: Alexandru Petrescu Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: trivial | Milestone: Component: dhcpv6-route-option | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ----------------------------------+--------------------------------- Ticket URL: mif From trac+mif@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Aug 1 14:24:20 2012 Return-Path: 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 1271311E837F for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:24:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9+-AjfQ9OYSj for