这是DAN的意思，还是你的想法？ -----Original Message----- From: mif [mailto:mif-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of GangChen Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:57 AM To: mif Cc: draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension Subject: [mif] questions for clarification in MPVD arch
WG, We intend to update the draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension to align with MPVD arch. Questions have to be clarified in order to proceed the progress. Is there any conclusion if PVD rules conflict with RFC6731 and RFC4191? Two particular cases are: 1) Name resolution Let's say, host A receives RDNSS Selection DHCPv6 Option with domain name of example.com on interface 1. It also receives PVD-ID of example.com on interface 2. If the host A makes query for a.example.com, which interface should be selected 2) next hop draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-01 states: For each obtained destination address, the node shall perform a next-hop lookup among routers, associated with that PVD. Does it means the host likely excludes Route Information Option on the routers which can't associate with the PVD? Many thanks Gang _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
