Subject: [mif] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement-09.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:15:02 -0700 (PDT)

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           : Multiple Interfaces and Provisioning Domains Problem Statement
	Author(s)       : M. Blanchet, P. Seite
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement-09.txt
	Pages           : 18
	Date            : 2010-10-25

This document describes issues encountered by a node attached to
multiple provisioning domains.  This node receives configuration
information from each of its provisioning domains where some
configuration objects are global to the node, others are local to the
interface.  Issues such as selecting the wrong interface to send
trafic happen when conflicting node-scoped configuration objects are
received and inappropriately used.  Moreover, other issues are the
result of simulatenous attachment to multiple networks, such as
domain selection or addressing and naming space overlaps, regardless
of the provisioning mechanism.  While multiple provisioning domains
are typically seen on nodes with multiple interfaces, this document
also discusses single interface nodes situation.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement-09.txt

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

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:20:52 +0100

co-editors believe that this new version covers comments during IESG 
review. please comment.

Marc.

Le 10-10-25 22:15, [email-masked] a écrit :
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

-- 
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca
NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:31:37 +0200

I mainly agree with many points in this draft.

I have a particular interest in the problem of default route for a
multiply-interfaced node.  I am happy this problem is described here.

However, I do not understand the following:

> A MIF node (M1) has an active interface(I1) connected to a network
> (N1) and another active interface (I2) connected to a network (N2).
> The user or the application is trying to reach an IP address (IP1).
> Any of the following situations may occur:
>
> 1.  For IP1, M1 has one default route (R1) via network (N1).[...]

I do not understand 'For IP1, M1 has one default route', because a
default route is for any other destination not found in the routing
table, and not necessarily for one particular address.  A default route
entry in the routing table looks:

Dst       GW          Mask     ... Dev
0.0.0.0   192.0.1.1   0.0.0.0      eth0

It is a default route because Dst is 0.0.0.0.  This is why I do not
understand 'For IP1' in the item above.  Or is IP1 0.0.0.0.

> 2.  For the IP1 address family, M1 has one default route (R1, R2) per
> network (N1, N2).[...]

Now 'IP1' is an address family, not simply an address - do you mean IPv4
address family vs IPv6 address family?  I think not.  I think you mean a
subnet rather than address family?

> 3.  For the IP1 address family, M1 has a default route (R1), a
> specific X.0.0.0/8 route R1B (for example but not restricted to

What is X?  Is it 10?  I think there could be no other X.0.0.0/8 of
rfc1918, in this sense I think it should say 10 rather than X.

> 3.  For the IP1 address family, M1 has a default route (R1), a
> specific X.0.0.0/8 route R1B (for example but not restricted to
> RFC1918 prefix) to N1 and a default route (R2) to N2.  IP1 is
> reachable by N2 only, but the prefix (X.0.0.0/8) is used in both
> networks.  Because of the most specific route R1B, M1 stack sends
> through I2 and never reach the target.

I think I understand the problem of configuring 10.0.0.0/8 on two
different interfaces.  But I don't think the problem has to do with the
default routes, neither with address families.  It is indeed a problem
of specific routes as you say and - as important - a problem of private
address space.

Alex

Le 25/10/2010 23:20, Marc Blanchet a écrit :
>> 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 : Multiple Interfaces and Provisioning Domains Problem
>> Statement Author(s) : M. Blanchet, P. Seite Filename :
>> draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement-09.txt Pages : 18 Date :
>> 2010-10-25
>>
>> configuration objects are global to the node, others are local to
>> the interface. Issues such as selecting the wrong interface to send
>> trafic happen when conflicting node-scoped configuration objects
>> are received and inappropriately used. Moreover, other issues are
>> the result of simulatenous attachment to multiple networks, such as
>> domain selection or addressing and naming space overlaps,
>> regardless of the provisioning mechanism. While multiple
>> provisioning domains are typically seen on nodes with multiple
>> interfaces, this document also discusses single interface nodes
>> situation.
>>
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> _______________________________________________ mif mailing list
>> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>
>