From nobody Wed Jun 11 18:56:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1011B2971 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:56:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oqkQQlHmNbr1 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:56:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x22f.google.com (mail-qc0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A40011B296C for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:56:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id i8so965948qcq.34 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:56:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=jbkiohD1KuLxFZZsijUxQa0yM5FPrwYXiEOKEdA6kU0=; b=dAjzvkzcpt8tc1l0YsFx+tafIkXByhQy/i+uapirsT/mDb+Hh7A35BiR9mt9T5yNum ofjTUdhf/Cew7OI8URFgiJbLn1vLXN4d+LTxByTa4y5h9K2lKPBM70iQCcXLtugBkY3O N9POHPUFqA0zSQDL8pRgcx88ZdYqUEXw0N/SjEgq0NNq00Pkb9r8f2iCeYvVVU/bQqni ssqwR4AuJ45vvy7ZfkJe2ydVqWtX5qYw1zL/ITkKWi+JrLZeWjMxcBi3vG1E/hRzD8Lz pw6vcxpDyeH9M+DB+PbzRBZSr+dpI1MbOE34fiQnGzM9D9v+oE76YyAoH7XxYMAG5BCi maww== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.87.243 with SMTP id r106mr52378023qgd.75.1402538192779; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:56:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.80.138 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:56:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:56:32 +0800 Message-ID: From: GangChen To: mif Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/1xcAAzjauBpAobIS1Uj2-CF9JDQ Cc: draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension Subject: [mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 01:56:35 -0000 WG, We intend to update the draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension to align with MPVD arch. Questions have to be clarified in order to proceed the progress. Is there any conclusion if PVD rules conflict with RFC6731 and RFC4191? Two particular cases are: 1) Name resolution Let's say, host A receives RDNSS Selection DHCPv6 Option with domain name of example.com on interface 1. It also receives PVD-ID of example.com on interface 2. If the host A makes query for a.example.com, which interface should be selected 2) next hop draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-01 states: For each obtained destination address, the node shall perform a next-hop lookup among routers, associated with that PVD. Does it means the host likely excludes Route Information Option on the routers which can't associate with the PVD? Many thanks Gang From nobody Sun Jun 15 19:08:11 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4E21B29CB for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:08:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.371 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ONfoy3R6zzZY for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cmccmta.chinamobile.com (cmccmta.chinamobile.com [221.176.64.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 72BAC1B27D4 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:08:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.20.11]) by rmmx-oa_allagent01-12001 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee1539e515de25-85e25; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:07:25 +0800 (CST) X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee1539e515de25-85e25 Received: from cmccPC (unknown[10.2.43.171]) by rmsmtp-oa_rmapp01-12001 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee1539e515caf1-f3e9c; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:07:25 +0800 (CST) X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee1539e515caf1-f3e9c From: "Hui Deng" To: "'GangChen'" , "'mif'" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:08:01 +0800 Message-ID: <001e01cf8907$cd5c7a40$68156ec0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac+F4XmG57GdNuSQQRCzNRi/gfR5ZADJk54A Content-Language: zh-cn Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/8dPIbe8HekZLqhY6NZxlUjLgFxs Cc: 'draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension' Subject: Re: [mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:08:10 -0000 =E8=BF=99=E6=98=AFDAN=E7=9A=84=E6=84=8F=E6=80=9D=EF=BC=8C=E8=BF=98=E6=98=AF= =E4=BD=A0=E7=9A=84=E6=83=B3=E6=B3=95=EF=BC=9F -----Original Message----- From: mif [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of GangChen Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:57 AM To: mif Cc: draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension Subject: [mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch WG, We intend to update the draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension to align = with MPVD arch. Questions have to be clarified in order to proceed the progress. Is there any conclusion if PVD rules conflict with RFC6731 and RFC4191? Two particular cases are: 1) Name resolution Let's say, host A receives RDNSS Selection DHCPv6 Option with domain = name of example.com on interface 1. It also receives PVD-ID of example.com on interface 2. If the host A makes query for a.example.com, which interface should be = selected 2) next hop draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-01 states: For each obtained destination address, the node shall perform a next-hop lookup among routers, associated with that PVD. Does it means the host likely excludes Route Information Option on the = routers which can't associate with the PVD? Many thanks Gang _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif From nobody Sun Jun 15 19:12:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D4D1B2925 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:12:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.371 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mLBpw0sbVPb8 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cmccmta.chinamobile.com (cmccmta.chinamobile.com [221.176.64.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E7E551B27D4 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.20.21]) by rmmx-oa_allagent02-12002 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee2539e527f07c-dc07c; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:12:15 +0800 (CST) X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee2539e527f07c-dc07c Received: from cmccPC (unknown[10.2.43.171]) by rmsmtp-oa_rmapp03-12003 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee3539e527d3ea-e845b; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:12:15 +0800 (CST) X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee3539e527d3ea-e845b From: "Hui Deng" To: "'Hui Deng'" , "'GangChen'" , "'mif'" References: <001e01cf8907$cd5c7a40$68156ec0$@com> In-Reply-To: <001e01cf8907$cd5c7a40$68156ec0$@com> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:12:51 +0800 Message-ID: <002501cf8908$7a43ef90$6ecbceb0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac+F4XmG57GdNuSQQRCzNRi/gfR5ZADJk54AAAAmJDA= Content-Language: zh-cn Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/MkFhmXoDJEMJRWThSdiqYITXhLM Cc: 'draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension' Subject: Re: [mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:12:53 -0000 Excuse me, I have sent to the wrong email address, sorry for mistake. Best regards, -Hui -----Original Message----- From: mif [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hui Deng Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 10:08 AM To: 'GangChen'; 'mif' Cc: 'draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension' Subject: Re: [mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch =E8=BF=99=E6=98=AFDAN=E7=9A=84=E6=84=8F=E6=80=9D=EF=BC=8C=E8=BF=98=E6=98=AF= =E4=BD=A0=E7=9A=84=E6=83=B3=E6=B3=95=EF=BC=9F -----Original Message----- From: mif [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of GangChen Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:57 AM To: mif Cc: draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension Subject: [mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch WG, We intend to update the draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension to align = with MPVD arch. Questions have to be clarified in order to proceed the progress. Is there any conclusion if PVD rules conflict with RFC6731 and RFC4191? Two particular cases are: 1) Name resolution Let's say, host A receives RDNSS Selection DHCPv6 Option with domain = name of example.com on interface 1. It also receives PVD-ID of example.com on interface 2. If the host A makes query for a.example.com, which interface should be = selected 2) next hop draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-01 states: For each obtained destination address, the node shall perform a next-hop lookup among routers, associated with that PVD. Does it means the host likely excludes Route Information Option on the = routers which can't associate with the PVD? Many thanks Gang _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif From nobody Mon Jun 23 18:33:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BDC1A05CB; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 18:33:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q6PZqVMYoeS9; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 18:33:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA7A1A0547; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 18:33:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.5.0.p3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140624013339.15771.8235.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 18:33:39 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/CCRJfgsh0Pav3FLXLfvgUfqQYOs Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-05.txt X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 01:33:41 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Multiple Interfaces Working Group of the IETF. Title : Happy Eyeballs Extension for Multiple Interfaces Authors : Gang Chen Carl Williams Dan Wing Andrew Yourtchenko Filename : draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-05.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2014-06-23 Abstract: Currently the interface selection in multi-interface environment is exclusive - only one interface can be used at the time, frequently needing manual intervention. Happy Eyeballs in MIF would make the selection process smoother by using the connectivity checks over a pre-filtered interfaces according to defined policy. This would choose the fastest interface with an automatic fallback. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/