some level of generic network characteristics benefit for the user.
one example could be that routing metric may need to be updated
to align with various kind of access technologies.
2009/4/17 Giyeong Son <gson(_at_)rim(_dot_)com>:
Again as I mentioned, in order to prepare or build an efficient routing
policy and to select an efficient connection/interface, it would be
necessary to identify, classify and/or prioritize underlying network
characteristics or information of the attached networks.
In addition, as many network characteristics which are essential to be
used for simultaneous use of multiple interfaces are not generic forms
(e.g. SSID only for 802.11), these network characteristics may require a
mechanism to make them be associated with generic (formed) elements used
for routing policy preparation and routing decision. Therefore, if MIF
can provide an efficient guideline or mechanism for associating, it
would be really amazing.
I believe, the current IP network related protocols and standardized
technologies may not be enough to support that on multiple interface
I think each vendor, carrier, service provider and/or technology, which
utilizes or supports simultaneous use of multiple
connections/interfaces, may have their own proprietary mechanism in
terms of gathering of network characteristics of each interface/access
network technology (e.g. WiFi, GPRS, CDMA, Bluetooth, etc.), their
mapping mechanism with generic formed elements, routing policy and
decision mechanisms with different IP based service networks owned by
different service providers or different IP network enabling core
networks owned by different carriers.
So, the problem Ted and Ralph are addressing seems to be just one of
issues (but only for WiFi network environments) in terms of network
characteristic that may be necessary to be considered during selection
of an efficient connection/interface from multiple candidates.
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: April 16, 2009 1:32 PM
To: Ted Lemon
Cc: Giyeong Son; Hui Deng; dhc WG; gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; mif;
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [mif] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-container-00
Yup ... there is currently no way to provide authenticated, meaningful
identification of the network(s) to which a host is attached. Without
that identification, it's pretty hard to write any reasonable policies.
On Apr 16, 2009, at 1:26 PM 4/16/09, Ted Lemon wrote:
On 2009/4/13 Ralph Droms <rdroms(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
For example, would a host process
information received from a Starbucks network over its 802.11
interface differently from information received a home network over
the 802.11 interface?
It's even more fun than that. How do we reliably know that we are
at Starbucks, and not at home? The SSID? That's not an
authenticated token. Currently Windows makes security decisions
based on the SSID. You could call this the best answer they could
come up with for a problem with no good answers. Or you could say
that it instills the user with a false sense of security. Either
way, it's not something I'd be comfortable seeing in a protocol spec,
so if the client is in fact to make decisions as you've
suggested, we'd need a secure way of doing this. I don't know
enough about WPA Enterprise to know if there's a bidirectional
authentication going on there - from the UI perspective it looks like
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information, privileged material (including material protected by the
solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public
information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your
system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Ietf mailing list