Subject: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-api-extension-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:20:00 -0700

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           : MIF API consideration
	Author(s)       : Dapeng Liu
                          Ted Lemon
                          Yuri Ismailov
                          Zhen Cao
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mif-api-extension-04.txt
	Pages           : 18
	Date            : 2013-10-21

Abstract:
   Hosts may connect to the internet using more than one network API at
   a time, or to a single network on which service is provided by more
   than one provider.  Existing APIs are inadequate to allow
   applications to successfully use the network in this environment.
   This document presents a new abstract API that provides the minimal
   set of messages required to enable an application to communicate
   successfully in this environment.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-api-extension

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-api-extension-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mif-api-extension-04

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/

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:10:20 +0200 (CEST)

In 3.1 there is a "point of discussion". I would like to comment on this.

For me, it's obvious that there can/must/will be separate provisioning 
domains on the same wire.

Basically, I want to have everything with very fine granularity, basically 
being able to have separate DNS servers for each prefix on the wire, which 
might even be announced by the same router.

So each prefix announced in a style approximate with 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lepape-6man-prefix-metadata-00 should be 
able to have its own RFC6106 (perhaps needs to be extended) announced 
resolver, default gateway etc.

I also forsee that there is going to have to be extensions to DHCPv6 in 
order to tell the host what information goes where, but let's not get 
ahead of things, let's just conclude that just the fact that there would 
be two routers on the same wire, each advertising unique prefixes that the 
other one isn't announcing, means there is more than one PVD on the wire.

About the rest of the document, my idea of how this would work would be 
that there also would be a way on the OS to bind a complete application to 
a PVD, ie my corporate email program would be bound to the "corporate 
PVD", and when this wasn't available, the program wouldn't see any network 
connectivity at all. I could then establish connectivity to this PVD by 
either running a VPN client over the Internet, or I could connect to the 
enterprise network with wifi or cable directly. When reading the document 
I can't tell if this is possible or not (this is for non-MIF aware 
applications).

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]