|
Hi everyone, I hope that I'm not abusing this list, and that you'll have some time to say your opinion regarding the use of DNS for configuring explicit PvDs? For those that don't know, provisioning domain (PvD) is another name for a set of a network configuration parameters. You can think of parameters in DHCP reply as a PvD, or RA message content as a PvD (potentially suplanted with additional data from DHCPv6 server). Basic idea behind PvDs (and IETF MIF WG which introduced them) is that you'll have multiple connections for each host, either via separate routers/interfaces, or through the single interface. Now, IETF MIF WG is heading towards using RAs only to indicate possibility of additional, and independent, sets of configuration parameters which would be obtained from DNS (yet to be defined how). See the mail attached after my message. So, what are your thoughts about that? Recommendations? And if someone asks why not DHCP, the problem is IPR claim from Huawei (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2648). I analyzed IPR claim (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sgros-dhcp-and-ipr-claim-analysis-00) but IETF MIF WG didn't discuss it, maybe even take it into account. Thanks, Stjepan Groš -------- Forwarded Message --------
At the last MIF meeting, and later on the mailing list, we reached consensus that we would use a two-step approach for the configuration of explicit PVDs. RAs would be used to provide the information to do a second-step look up, including the PVD name. Then a second step would be used to look up further information about the PVD. The only proposal we currently have on the table for a second-step look-up is a DNS look-up, and no one seems to be advocating for another method. So, to define a two-step approach using DNS, there are three things that we need to specify: - An NTP server option for RAs, so that DNSSEC can be used for the lookup. - A PVD Name option for RAs, so that we can tell hosts what PVD to look up. - An explanation of what PVD information will be held in the DNS and how. Those things would need to be added to our charter, so that we can accept corresponding work items. Does anyone have any objection to adding explicit PVD configuration to the MIF charter and adding these three work items to our milestone list? If not, the chairs and the AD will propose a charter/milestone update along these lines. Thanks, Margaret _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif ietf org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature