Subject: Re: [mif] next step for MIF PVD configuration

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 15:00:08 +0200 (CEST)

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Margaret Cullen wrote:

>
> Hi Mikael,
>
> I agree with some of the issues you have raised about the current draft for DNS lookups of PVD information.  I think that if we go with a DNS-based approach, we will need to do some work on the DNS mechanism to fix these sorts of issues.
>
> Do you have time to write a draft for the mechanism you have suggested, so that we can discuss it in the group?

Hi,

as you might have dedicted, I did not do this.

In talk about other issues with Ole Tröan, he suggested RFC4620 "IPv6 Node 
Information Queries" as a potential mechanism that could be augmented for 
sharing all kinds of information between nodes. I just read this and it 
could be used, but I don't have a firm opinion yet exactly how it should 
be formatted, how to do indirection (if needed).

I feel we need to understand the deployment model better, we need to 
decide who should have access to what information (if we put it in DNS, 
should anyone on the Internet have access to the speed of the Internet 
connection and if it's metered or not? There are pros and cons with both 
making it secret or not).

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 16:05:59 +0200 (CEST)

> as you might have dedicted, I did not do this.

Sorry, must be jet lag. I meant "noticed", not decided.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 02:04:56 +0000

In the homenet naming architecture this is addressed by giving out multiple caching resolver IP addresses per link, one for each pvd.