draft-ietf-mif-current-practices-08.txt   draft-ietf-mif-current-practices-09.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force M. Wasserman Internet Engineering Task Force M. Wasserman
Internet-Draft Painless Security, LLC Internet-Draft Painless Security, LLC
Intended status: Informational P. Seite Intended status: Informational P. Seite
Expires: September 1, 2011 France Telecom - Orange Expires: September 29, 2011 France Telecom - Orange
February 28, 2011 March 28, 2011
Current Practices for Multiple Interface Hosts Current Practices for Multiple Interface Hosts
draft-ietf-mif-current-practices-08 draft-ietf-mif-current-practices-09
Abstract Abstract
An increasing number of hosts are operating in multiple-interface An increasing number of hosts are operating in multiple-interface
environments, where different network interfaces are providing environments, where different network interfaces are providing
unequal levels of service or connectivity. This document summarizes unequal levels of service or connectivity. This document summarizes
current practices in this area, and describes in detail how some current practices in this area, and describes in detail how some
common operating systems cope with these challenges. common operating systems cope with these challenges.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 29, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 16, line 30 skipping to change at page 16, line 30
Policy based routing can be used in addition to Linux packet Policy based routing can be used in addition to Linux packet
filtering capabilities, e.g provided by the "iptables" tool. In a filtering capabilities, e.g provided by the "iptables" tool. In a
multiple interfaces context, this tool can be used to mark the multiple interfaces context, this tool can be used to mark the
packets, i.e assign a number to fwmark, in order to select the packets, i.e assign a number to fwmark, in order to select the
routing rule according to the type of traffic. This mark can be routing rule according to the type of traffic. This mark can be
assigned according to parameters like protocol, source and/or assigned according to parameters like protocol, source and/or
destination addresses, port number and so on. destination addresses, port number and so on.
Such a routing management framework allows to deal with complex Such a routing management framework allows to deal with complex
situation such as address space overlaping. In this situation, the situation such as address space overlapping. In this situation, the
administrator can use packet marking and policy based routing to administrator can use packet marking and policy based routing to
select the correct interface. select the correct interface.
3.2.2.2. Outbound and Inbound Addresses 3.2.2.2. Outbound and Inbound Addresses
By default, source address selection follows the following basics By default, source address selection follows the following basics
rules: the initial source address for an outbound packet can be rules: the initial source address for an outbound packet can be
chosen by the application using the bind() call. Without information chosen by the application using the bind() call. Without information
from the application, the kernel chooses the first address configured from the application, the kernel chooses the first address configured
on the interface which belongs to the same subnet than the on the interface which belongs to the same subnet than the
skipping to change at page 18, line 29 skipping to change at page 18, line 29
This section describes behaviors of connection managers in presence This section describes behaviors of connection managers in presence
of multiple points of attachment for a same interface. In order to of multiple points of attachment for a same interface. In order to
illustrate different practices, a set of representative handsets illustrate different practices, a set of representative handsets
considered: LG Pathfinder, Android/HTC magic, RIM BlackBerry and considered: LG Pathfinder, Android/HTC magic, RIM BlackBerry and
iPhone (3G and 3GS). The section focuses on WLAN access technology, iPhone (3G and 3GS). The section focuses on WLAN access technology,
it is described how does the connection manager deal with the list of it is described how does the connection manager deal with the list of
preferred SSID and how does it select the access point for preferred SSID and how does it select the access point for
attachment. Desktops are not covered since many different connection attachment. Desktops are not covered since many different connection
managers can be easily installed, thus making hard to report a common managers can be easily installed, thus making hard to report a common
behaviour. behaviour. This section only focuses on a specific use-case and
current implementations; however further considerations on network
discovery and selection can be found in [RFC5113]. [RFC5113]
describes the network discovery and selection and discusses
limitations and constraints on potential solutions.
When the terminal is under coverage of different WLAN networks with When the terminal is under coverage of different WLAN networks with
different SSIDs: different SSIDs:
Connection managers, excepted for the RIM Blackberry, construct Connection managers, excepted for the RIM Blackberry, construct
the list of preferred SSID giving priority to the last SSID on the list of preferred SSID giving priority to the last SSID on
which they have managed to attach. Excepted for the RIM which they have managed to attach. Excepted for the RIM
blackberry, the user is not allowed to define its preferred blackberry, the user is not allowed to define its preferred
access. So, if the terminal discovers and manages to attach to access. So, if the terminal discovers and manages to attach to
SSID1, SSID1 becomes the preferred access for future attachment. SSID1, SSID1 becomes the preferred access for future attachment.
skipping to change at page 21, line 16 skipping to change at page 21, line 18
o Giyeong Son, RIM. o Giyeong Son, RIM.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mif-problem-statement] [I-D.ietf-mif-problem-statement]
Blanchet, M. and P. Seite, "Multiple Interfaces and Blanchet, M. and P. Seite, "Multiple Interfaces and
Provisioning Domains Problem Statement", Provisioning Domains Problem Statement",
draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement-09 (work in progress), draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement-11 (work in progress),
October 2010. March 2011.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[ANDROID] Google Inc., "Android developers: package android.net", [ANDROID] Google Inc., "Android developers: package android.net",
2009, <http://developer.android.com/reference/android/net/ 2009, <http://developer.android.com/reference/android/net/
ConnectivityManager.html>. ConnectivityManager.html>.
[ANDROID-RFC3484] [ANDROID-RFC3484]
Gunderson, S., "RFC 3484 support for Android", 2010, <http Gunderson, S., "RFC 3484 support for Android", 2010, <http
://gitorious.org/0xdroid/bionic/commit/ ://gitorious.org/0xdroid/bionic/commit/
skipping to change at page 22, line 32 skipping to change at page 22, line 34
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - [RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989. Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load [RFC4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load
Sharing", RFC 4311, November 2005. Sharing", RFC 4311, November 2005.
[RFC5113] Arkko, J., Aboba, B., Korhonen, J., and F. Bari, "Network
Discovery and Selection Problem", RFC 5113, January 2008.
[S60] Nokia Corporation, "S60 Platform: IP Bearer Management", [S60] Nokia Corporation, "S60 Platform: IP Bearer Management",
2007, <http://www.forum.nokia.com/info/sw.nokia.com/id/ 2007, <http://www.forum.nokia.com/info/sw.nokia.com/id/
190358c8-7cb1-4be3-9321-f9d6788ecae5/ 190358c8-7cb1-4be3-9321-f9d6788ecae5/
S60_Platform_IP_Bearer_Management_v1_0_en.pdf.html>. S60_Platform_IP_Bearer_Management_v1_0_en.pdf.html>.
[UDHCP] Busybox, "uDHCP", 2009, <http://sources.busybox.net/ [UDHCP] Busybox, "uDHCP", 2009, <http://sources.busybox.net/
index.py/trunk/busybox/networking/udhcp/>. index.py/trunk/busybox/networking/udhcp/>.
[WINDOWSMOBILE] [WINDOWSMOBILE]
Microsoft Corporation, "SDK Documentation for Windows Microsoft Corporation, "SDK Documentation for Windows
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
8 lines changed or deleted 15 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/