Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension
draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension
Internet Engineering Task Force G. Chen
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Informational C. Williams
Expires: May 17, 2017 Consultant
D. Wing
A. Yourtchenko
Cisco Systems, Inc.
November 13, 2016
Happy Eyeballs Extension for Multiple Interfaces
draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-11
Abstract
This memo proposes extensions to the Happy Eyeball's algorithm
requirements defined in RFC6555 for use with the multiple
provisioning domain architecture. The Happy Eyeballs in MIF would
make the selection process smoother by using connectivity tests over
pre-filtered interfaces according to defined policy. This would
choose the best interface with an automatic fallback mechanism.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Chen, et al. Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft happy-eyeballs-mif November 2016
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. WiFi is broken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Policy Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Happiness Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Hard Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1. Operator Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.2. User Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Soft Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. Provisioning Domain Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.2. DNS Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.3. Next Hop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.4. Source Address Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.5. Common Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. HE-MIF Process Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. First Step, Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Second Step, Sort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.1. Interface Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.2. Name Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.3. Connection Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Implementation Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Usage Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Fallback Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3. DNS Selections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.4. Flow Continuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.5. Interworking with Happy Eyeball . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.6. Multipath Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Chen, et al. Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft happy-eyeballs-mif November 2016
1. Introduction
The MIF problem statement [RFC6418] describes problems specific for
nodes attached to multiple provisioning domains. Specifically, there
is a issue description that a node has selected an interface and
obtained a valid IP address from the network, but Internet
connectivity is not available. This memo intends to address the
issue and elaborate more in Section 3.1.
[RFC7556] describes the multiple provisioning domain architecture.
It refers to using connectivity tests to validate a Provisioning
Domain (PvD). Given a number of implicit/explicit PvDs, plus
preferences/policy, what is the process to follow to select the best
PvD to use for any given connection. In the event that two or more
are deemed to be best, how are the Happy Eyeballs (HE) techniques
applied to find the best and deal with resilience. This memo also
proposes process requirements using Happy Eyeballs (HE) extensions.
There are a variety of algorithms that can be envisioned. This
document describes additional parameters and processes that need to
be considered in addition to the HE algorithm requirements defined in
[RFC6555] necessary to support multiple interfaces, so that a node
with multiple interfaces can select the best path for a particular
connection-oriented flow (e.g., TCP, SCTP).
2. Terminology
This document makes use of following terms:
o Happy Eyeballs (HE): specifies requirements for an algorithm that
reduces the user-visible connection delay for dual-stack hosts
with a single interface per-protocol.
o Happy Eyeballs - Multi-Interface (HE-MIF): Extends the Happy
Eyeballs concept to the multiple provisioning domain architecture.
It describes additional requirements for algorithms that offer
connectivity tests on PVD-aware or non-PVD-aware nodes [RFC7556]
to select the best interface for a specific connection request.
3. Use Cases
The section describes scenarios the HE-MIF targeted to use.
3.1. WiFi is broken
Assuming a MIF node has both a 3GPP mobile network interface and a
WiFi interface, a common practice would be to always prefer the WiFi
connection when the node enters an area with WiFi available. In this
Chen, et al. Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft happy-eyeballs-mif November 2016
situation, a node might assume that because a valid IP address has
been allocated, the WiFi link provides connectivity to destinations
through the Internet. However, this might not be the case for
several reasons:
o WiFi access-point authentication requirements
o WiFi has no global Internet connectivity
o Instability at layer 2
In order to resolve this problem, the user would need to disable the
device's interface preferences, e.g. by disabling the WiFi interface.
HE-MIF offers users the possibility of configuring their preferences
for the choice of the most suitable network interface to use, such as
via setting on their mobile phone.
In this case, users may prefer to wait an appropriate time period for
connections to be established over a WiFi path. If no connection can
be made it will fall back to attempting the connection over a 3GPP
mobile network path.
3.2. Policy Conflict
A node has network access via both WiFi and 3GPP networks. In a
mobile network, IPv6-only may be preferable since IPv6 has the
potential to be simpler than dual-stack. The WiFi access offers IPv4
only. In this scenario, the combination of source address selection
[RFC6724] and preferring the WiFi interface may cause a problem. The
transition to IPv6 may mean that IPv6 is the preferred protocol, so
the 3GPP interface should be chosen even though it could be
considered a suboptimal selection e.g. the WiFi interface likely is
less expensive.
4. Happiness Parameters
This section provides input parameter proposal that HE-MIF should
catch. Two sets of "Happiness" parameters have been defined. It
serves applications and initiates HE-MIF connection tests
subsequently. By following the process described below, MIF nodes
can select an appropriate interface that best meets the configuration
parameters defined by the user. The two sets of "Happiness"
parameters are called Hard Set and Soft Set respectively.
Chen, et al. Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft happy-eyeballs-mif November 2016
4.1. Hard Set
Hard set contains parameters which should be complied with. It helps
to select candidate interfaces through which a particular flow should
be directed. These should be seen as constraints on the choice, such
as provider policies, support for IPv4 or IPv6, and other parameters
which would prevent a particular interface and transport from being
used by a particular flow. Parameters in the hard set should be easy
to use and understand. When several parameters in the hard set are
in conflict, the user's preference should be prioritized.
4.1.1. Operator Policy
Operators may deliver the customized policies for a particular
network environment because of geo-location or service regulation
considerations. One example relevant for 3GPP networks is an
operator delivering policies from an Access Network Discovery and
Selection function (ANDSF) [TS23.402].
The ANDSF provides a node with policies and network selection
information to influence the selection between different access
technologies, such as 3GPP mobile networks, WiFi access. The ANDSF
can provide the node with three types of information[TS24.302].
o Access network discovery and selection information: it includes a
list of access networks available in the vicinity of the node.
The information may include the access technology types (e.g.
WiFi), network identifiers (e.g. SSID in the case of WiFi) as
well as validity conditions (e.g. where and when).
o Inter-System Mobility Policies (ISMPs): they are a set of
operator-defined rules and preferences that affect the inter-
system mobility decisions, e.g. decisions about whether to use
3GPP mobile network or a WiFi network.
o Inter-System Routing Policies (ISRPs): the node uses ISRPs when it
can route IP traffic simultaneously over multiple radio access
networks. It could provide routing policies in an IP flow
granularity.
4.1.2. User Preference
User's preference: users may express preferences which likely not
have a formally technical language , like "No 3/4G while roaming",
"Only download applications larger than 20Mb over WiFi", etc. Those
information are normally input from User Interface (UI).
Chen, et al. Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft happy-eyeballs-mif November 2016
4.2. Soft Set
Soft set contains factors which impact the selection of the path
across which a particular flow should be transmitted among the
available interfaces and transports which meet the hard set
requirements described above.
4.2.1. Provisioning Domain Identity
A PVD-aware node uses PvD Identity(PvD-ID) to select a PvD with a
matching ID for special-purpose connection requests. The PvD-ID may
be generated by the node implicitly or received from the network
explicitly. for explicit PvDs, the node could take the parameter from
PvD ID Option [I-D.ietf-mif-mpvd-id] via the configuration protocols
([I-D.ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support] or
[I-D.ietf-mif-mpvd-ndp-support]). A PVD-aware node may decide to use
one preferred PVD or allow the use of multiple PVDs simultaneously
for applications. The node behavior should be consistent with MPVD
architecture [RFC7556].
4.2.2. DNS Selection
At the name service lookup step, the node has to choose a recursive
DNS server to use. A HE-MIF node should take the parameter of RDNSS
Selection DHCP Option [RFC6731] to select an interface for a
particular namespace.
4.2.3. Next Hop
[RFC4191] allows the configuration of specific routes to a
destination. A HE-MIF node should take the parameters of router
preference and route information to identify the next hop.
4.2.4. Source Address Selection
For each destination, once the best next hop is found, the node
should consider IP prefix and precedence parameter in policy table to
select the best source address according to the rule defined in
[RFC6724].
4.2.5. Common Practice
There is relevant common practice related to interface selection,
e.g. Prefer WiFi over a 3GPP interface, if available. Such
conventions should also be considered.
Chen, et al. Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft happy-eyeballs-mif November 2016
5. HE-MIF Process Requirements
An HE-MIF node may use the two sets of parameters as two steps in the
interface selection process. The first step is to use the Hard Set
to synthesize policies from different actors (e.g., users or network
operators). These hard set parameters will provide a filter which
will exclude not qualifying interfaces from any further
consideration.
The second step is to influence how a node makes a connection when
multiple interfaces still remain in the candidate list after first
step. This is essentially sorting behavior. In the multiple
provisioning domain architecture, a PVD aware node makes connectivity
tests as described in Section 5.3 of [RFC7556]. A PVD agnostic node
take other parameters apart from PVD-ID in the Soft Set to proceed
the sort process.
The two steps are described in more details in the following sub-
sections. It should be noted that HE-MIF does not prescribe such
two-step model. It will be very specific to particular cases and
implementations. The two step model mainly describes requirements
for how to use the hard/soft set.
5.1. First Step, Filter
One goal of the filter is to reconcile multiple selection policies
from users or operators. Afterwards, merged demands would be mapped
to a set of candidate interfaces, which are judged as qualified.
Decision on the reconciliation of different policies will depend very
much on the deployment scenario. An implementation may not be able
to determine priority for each policies without explicit
configuration provided by users or administrator. For example, an
implementation may by default always prefer the WiFi because of cost
saving consideration. Whereas, other users may turn off a device's
WiFi interface to guarantee use of a 3GPP network interface to assure
higher reliability or security.
The decision on mergence of policies may be made by implementations,
or by node administrators. However, it's worth to note that a demand
from users should be normally considered higher priority than from
other actors.
The merged policies serve as a filter which is iterated across the
list of available interfaces. Qualified interfaces are selected and
the proceed to the second step.
Chen, et al. Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft happy-eyeballs-mif November 2016
5.2. Second Step, Sort
5.2.1. Interface Validation
The Sort process aims to select the best interface and provide
fallback capacities. As stated in [RFC7556], a PVD-aware node shall
perform connectivity tests and, only after validation of the PVD,
consider using it to serve application connections requests. In
current implementations, some nodes already implement this, e.g., by
trying to reach a dedicated web server (see Section 3.1.2 [RFC6419]
). If anything is abnormal, it assumes there is a proxy on the path.
This status detection is recommended to be used in HE-MIF to detect
DNS interception or an HTTP proxy that forces a login or a click-
through. Unexamined PVDs or interfaces should be accounted as
"unconnected". It should not join the sort process.
5.2.2. Name Resolution
Name resolution is executed on the validated interfaces. Before the
requests are initiated, it should check if there is a matching PVD ID
for the destination name. A PVD agnostic node may request DNS server
selection DHCP option [RFC6731] for interface selection guidance.
Those information may weight a particular interface to be preferred
to others sending resolving requests. If the node can't find useful
information in the Soft Set, DNS queries would be sent out on
multiple interfaces in parallel to maximize chances for connectivity.
Some additional discussions of DNS selection consideration of HE-MIF
are described in Section 7.3.
5.2.3. Connection Establishment
Once a destination address was resolved, a connection is to be setup.
For the given destination address, a PVD-aware node selects a next-
hop and source address associated with that PVD in the name
resolution process. A PVD agnostic node may receive certain next hop
in a RA message [RFC4191], the node selects best source address
according to the rules [RFC6724].
The interface identified by the source address should be treated to
initiate the connection prior to others. This could avoid thrashing
the network, by not making simultaneous connection attempts on
multiple interfaces. After making a connection attempt on the
preferred pairs and failing to establish a connection within a
certain time period (see Section 7.2), a HE-MIF implementation will
decide to initiate connection attempt using rest of interfaces in
parallel. This fallback consideration will make subsequent
connection attempts successful on non-preferable interfaces.
Chen, et al. Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft happy-eyeballs-mif November 2016
The node would cache information regarding the outcome of each
connection attempt. Cache entries would be flushed periodically. A
system-defined timeout may take place to age the state. Maximum on
the order of 10 minutes defined in [RFC6555] is recommended to keep
the interface state changes synchronizing with IP family states.
If there is no specific Soft Set provided, all selected interfaces
should be treated equally. for a node implementing multipath
transports (for example, Multipath TCP (MPTCP) [RFC6182]), the
interfaces could be treated as valid to perform subsequent multipath
process, such as starting subflow. A node only supporting single
physical transport would initiate on several interface
simultaneously. The goal here is to provide the most fast connection
for users, by quickly attempting to connect using each candidate
interface. Afterwards, the node would do the same caching and
flushing process as described above.
6. Implementation Framework
The simplest way to implement the processes described in this
document is within the application itself. This would not require
any specific support from the operating system beyond the commonly
available APIs that provide transport service. It could also be
implemented using a high-level API approach, linking to the MIF-API
[I-D.ietf-mif-api-extension].
7. Additional Considerations
7.1. Usage Scope
Connection-oriented transports (e.g., TCP, SCTP) are directly applied
as scoped in [RFC6555]. For connectionless transport protocols
(e.g., UDP), a similar mechanism can be used if the application has
request/response semantics. Further investigations are out of the
document scope.
7.2. Fallback Timeout
When the preferred interface was failed, HE-MIF would trigger a
fallback process to start connection initiation on several candidate
interfaces. A period of time should be set to invalidate the
interface and fallback to others. Aggressive timeouts may achieve
quick interface handover, but at the cost of traffic that may be
chargeable on certain networks, e.g. the handover from WiFi to 3GPP
networks brings a charge to customers. Considering the reasons, it
is recommended to prioritize the input from users (e.g., real
customers or applications) through user interface. For default-
setting on a system, a hard error [RFC1122] in replied ICMP could
Chen, et al. Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft happy-eyeballs-mif November 2016
serve as a trigger for the fallback process. When the ICMP soft
error is present or non-response was received, it's recommended that
the timeout should be large enough to allow connection
retransmission. [RFC1122] states that such timer must be at least 3
minutes to provide TCP retransmission. However, several minutes
delay may not inappropriate for user experiences. A widespread
practice [RFC5461] sets 75 seconds to optimize connection process.
More optimal timer may be expected. The particular setting will be
very specific to implementations and cases. The memo didn't try to
provide a concrete value because of following concerns.
o RTT (Round-Trip Time) on different interfaces may vary quite a
lot. A particular value of timeout may not accurately help to
make a decision that this interface doesn't work at all. On the
contrary, it may cause a misjudgment on a interface, which is not
very fast. In order to compensate the issues, the timeout setting
based on past experiences of a particular interface may help to
make a fair decision. Whereas, it's going beyond the capability
of Happy Eyeballs [RFC6555]. Therefore, it leaves a particular
implementation.
o In some cases, fast interface may not be treated as "best". For
example, a interface could be evaluated in the principle of
bandwidth-delay, termed "Bandwidth-Delay-Product ". Happy
Eyeballs measures only connection speed. That is, how quickly a
TCP connection is established . It does not measure bandwidth. If
the fallback has to take various factors into account and make
balanced decision, it's better to resort to a specific context and
implementation.
7.3. DNS Selections
During the Sort process, HE-MIF prioritizes PVD-ID match or [RFC6731]
inputs to select a proper server. It could help to address following
two cases.
o A DNS answer may be only valid for a specific provisioning domain,
but the DNS resolver may not be aware of that because the DNS
reply is not kept with the provisioning from which the answer
comes. The situation may become worse if asking internal name
with public address response or asking public name with private
address answers.
o Some FQDNs can be resolvable only by sending queries to the right
server (e.g., intranet services). Otherwise, a response with
NXDOMAIN is replied. Fast response is treated as optimal only if
Chen, et al. Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft happy-eyeballs-mif November 2016
the record is valid. That may cause messy for data connections,
since NXDOMAIN doesn't provide useful information.
HE-MIF can help to solve the issues of DNS interception with captive
portal. The DNS server modified and replied the answer with the IP
address of captive portal rather than the intended destination
address. In those cases, TCP connection may succeed, but Internet
connectivity is not available. It results in lack of service unless
user has authenticated. HE-MIF recommended using network
connectivity status probes to examine a pre-configured URL for
detecting DNS interception on the path (see more in Section 5.2).
The node will be able to automatically rely upon other interfaces to
select right DNS servers by excluding the unexamined interfaces.
7.4. Flow Continuity
[I-D.deng-mif-api-session-continuity-guide] describes session
continuity guidance for application developers. The flow continuity
topic is beyond this document scope.
7.5. Interworking with Happy Eyeball
HE-MIF process could cooperate with HE [RFC6555]. HE is executed on
an interface which is selected to make connection establishment (see
Section 5.2.3). for example, a node following PvD policy to pick a
interface and make both IPv4/IPv6 connection attempts in consistent
with HE requirements. The interface state management in HE-MIF is
designed to synchronize with IP family states. It could facilitate
the HE executions.
7.6. Multipath Applicability
Some nodes may support transports that provide an abstraction of a
single connection, aggregating multiple underlying connections.
Multipath TCP (MPTCP) [RFC6182] is an example of such a transport
protocol. For connections provided by such transports, a node may
leverage the "happiness" parameters and process on the underlying
connections. Following the HE-MIF requirements, each connection
could be performed consistently with user/operator's preference and
corresponding provisioning domain information.
8. IANA Considerations
This memo does not include any IANA requests.
Chen, et al. Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft happy-eyeballs-mif November 2016
9. Security Considerations
The security consideration is following the statement in [RFC6555]
and [RFC6418].
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Margaret Wasserman, Hui Deng, Erik
Kline, Stuart Cheshire, Teemu Savolainen, Jonne Soininen, Simon
Perreault, Zhen Cao, Dmitry Anipko, Ted Lemon, Daniel Migault, Russ
White and Bing Liu for their helpful comments.
Many thanks to Ralph Droms, Ian Farrer, Jouni Korhonen, Mirja
Khlewind and Suresh Krishnan for their detailed reviews.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191,
November 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>.
[RFC6555] Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, DOI 10.17487/RFC6555, April
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6555>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[RFC6731] Savolainen, T., Kato, J., and T. Lemon, "Improved
Recursive DNS Server Selection for Multi-Interfaced
Nodes", RFC 6731, DOI 10.17487/RFC6731, December 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6731>.
[TS23.402]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP., "Architecture
enhancements for non-3GPP accesses v8.8.0", December 2009.
Chen, et al. Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft happy-eyeballs-mif November 2016
[TS24.302]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP., "Access to the
3GPP Evolved Packet Core (EPC) via non-3GPP access
networks v14.0.0", June 2016.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.deng-mif-api-session-continuity-guide]
Deng, H., Krishnan, S., Lemon, T., and M. Wasserman,
"Guide for application developers on session continuity by
using MIF API", draft-deng-mif-api-session-continuity-
guide-04 (work in progress), July 2014.
[I-D.ietf-mif-api-extension]
Liu, D., Lemon, T., Ismailov, Y., and Z. Cao, "MIF API
consideration", draft-ietf-mif-api-extension-05 (work in
progress), February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support]
Krishnan, S., Korhonen, J., and S. Bhandari, "Support for
multiple provisioning domains in DHCPv6", draft-ietf-mif-
mpvd-dhcp-support-02 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-mif-mpvd-id]
Krishnan, S., Korhonen, J., Bhandari, S., and S.
Gundavelli, "Identification of provisioning domains",
draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-id-02 (work in progress), October
2015.
[I-D.ietf-mif-mpvd-ndp-support]
Korhonen, J., Krishnan, S., and S. Gundavelli, "Support
for multiple provisioning domains in IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery Protocol", draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-ndp-support-03
(work in progress), February 2016.
[RFC5461] Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5461, February 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5461>.
[RFC6182] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Barre, S., and J.
Iyengar, "Architectural Guidelines for Multipath TCP
Development", RFC 6182, DOI 10.17487/RFC6182, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6182>.
[RFC6418] Blanchet, M. and P. Seite, "Multiple Interfaces and
Provisioning Domains Problem Statement", RFC 6418,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6418, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6418>.
Chen, et al. Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft happy-eyeballs-mif November 2016
[RFC6419] Wasserman, M. and P. Seite, "Current Practices for
Multiple-Interface Hosts", RFC 6419, DOI 10.17487/RFC6419,
November 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6419>.
[RFC7556] Anipko, D., Ed., "Multiple Provisioning Domain
Architecture", RFC 7556, DOI 10.17487/RFC7556, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7556>.
Authors' Addresses
Gang Chen
China Mobile
29, Jinrong Avenue
Xicheng District,
Beijing 100033
China
Email: phdgang@gmail.com, chengang@chinamobile.com
Carl Williams
Consultant
El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306
USA
Email: carlw@mcsr-labs.org
Dan Wing
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: dwing@cisco.com
Andrew Yourtchenko
Cisco Systems, Inc.
De Kleetlaan, 7
Diegem B-1831
Belgium
Email: ayourtch@cisco.com
Chen, et al. Expires May 17, 2017 [Page 14]
