|
Re: [mif] [dhcwg] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-container-00
2009-04-19 04:03:56
I guess "routable" in mif mostly talking about there exist at least
two routing entry,(it doesn't matter whether it is the default router)
and both of them support one specific destination.
In that case, at least one routing entry will not work, it means not routable.
-Hui
2009/4/15 Giyeong Son <gson(_at_)rim(_dot_)com>:
I agree on Hui's and Ralpha's thoughts.
There may be a necessary or worthy study that identifies and classifies what
kind of information or network characteristics of/from the interfaces are
necessary and helpful in order to judge active and valid routable interfaces
for the destination (I am not sure the meaning and scope of "routable" with a
destination in terms of MIF though) and determine an efficient/best one among
them for the destination endpoint for the moment.
Giyeong
-----Original Message-----
From: mif-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:mif-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hui Deng
Sent: April 13, 2009 11:24 AM
To: Ralph Droms
Cc: mif; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
Black_David(_at_)emc(_dot_)com; dhc WG
Subject: Re: [mif] [dhcwg] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-container-00
Hi, Ralph,
I agree what you said here, Scott raised the possible issue how to
differentiate the source.
One instant thinking about the two different 802.11 interface is that the
principal source policy selection will not be able to tell the diffference,
we could allow high level policy to recommend how to handle it, give a
example, we may prioritize some wifi apn policy, and make others as just a
category of normal wifi.
Anyhow, those thing need to be further studied based on the current practice.
Thanks for the discussion.
-Hui
2009/4/13 Ralph Droms <rdroms(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>:
Hui - I think there is an issue for hosts with multiple interfaces
triggered by Scott's comments about the container option: even if a
host is physically aware that it has multiple interfaces, how does it
take the characteristics of the networks behind those interfaces into
account when it merges information? 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?
- Ralph
On Apr 12, 2009, at 2:34 AM 4/12/09, Hui Deng wrote:
Hi, Scott,
Based on the current MIF charter proposal, it consider only host.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/current/msg00367.html
I am wondering whether RG is a kind of host?
Anyhow, this discussion benefit MIF for the future consideration how
to identify the source.
Many thanks
-Hui
2009/4/11 Scott Brim <swb(_at_)employees(_dot_)org>:
Excerpts from Ralph Droms on Fri, Apr 10, 2009 03:25:49PM -0400:
Scott raises an interesting point about identifying the source of
options when delivered to clients.
BTW, Scott - what is "DHS"?
Sorry, DHCP server
The usual case - almost the only case today - is that there is a
single upstream service provider and a single source of DHCP
options to be passed along to the client. In this scenario,
there's no need to pass along any information identifying the source of
the options.
To allow for a multihomed subscriber network, I can imagine adding
a tag that would be passed along with the options so the subscriber
client can identify the source of each option. But, what would the
client do with that information? How would the client interpret
it? What is the syntax and semantics of the tagging?
Taken a step farther, sourcing information might be required even
if there is no intermediate RG and the contained option is not in
use. How does a device with multiple interfaces make policy
decisions about information received on those multiple interfaces
(which is pretty much the question Scott asks about the container option)?
- Ralph
Well put. It all comes down to where information is going to be
merged. The case where a single RG client connected to multiple SP
servers is essentially already covered by MIF/6man, they just need
to document it. If the information is merged at the RG server, then
the RG server should somehow know which interface which DHCP
information came from. If all of the information is transparently
passed to the consumer device, then it needs the tags as well.
I don't know how the information could be usefully tagged -- the SP
server's IP address doesn't sound like a good idea. The WG should
decide if tagging should be included in the container syntax or
added later (but documented now as needing study).
I'm CCing MIF in case people there aren't on the ietf list.
Thanks ... Scott
On Apr 7, 2009, at 2:25 PM 4/7/09, Scott Brim wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-dhc-container-00
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 7 April 2009
IESG Telechat date: 14 April 2009
Summary:
This draft is on the right track but has open issues.
Comments:
More significant:
I am concerned about multiple interface scenarios as are being
discussed in MIF and 6MAN, where either the RG is multiply
connected
or the end device is. For a discussion of the sort of problems
that
lead to this concern, see (for example) notes from the MIF BOF at
IETF74.
- There must be a way to associate options with a particular
upstream DHS they were obtained from, when the container is
passed
to the RG server and perhaps to the end device. This source
information may or may not be in the container itself -- that's
up
to the WG to decide. If it is decided that the source
information
will not be part of the container syntax, at least the fact
that
it is necessary should be documented for people who ultimately
do
specify how container options are passed.
- The SP server may have its ideas of how a consumer device
should
be configured, but it is not appropriate to say that the "SP
server MUST be able to control which DHCP options are
transmitted
to the consumer device". The RG server may need to make
decisions
about information from multiple DHCP servers. Perhaps you
could
say that the SP server MUST be able to "provide information" to
the RG server.
Less significant:
5.1 and 5.2
Alignment between the v4 and v6 descriptions would be better.
The
v4 description has "code" in the diagram and says that "code"
is
OPTION_CONTAINER_V4. The v6 description has "OPTION_CONTAINER_V6"
in the diagram and says that "option-code" is OPTION_CONTAINER_V6.
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|