IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-ps-02

"liuyin" <liuyin08@gmail.com> Tue, 17 March 2009 06:50 UTC

Return-Path: <liuyin08@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29323A6920 for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KNpWE6FnmOLm for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.185]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8373A67DD for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 11so2345516tim.25 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type; bh=K+i6GzKtOE71hZ+W809UoM8jBz1Nf3/8RJNSTwfFeBI=; b=oeXFQoKEhYTgKRdYZ64I7Xev9xzhYnHlwSiduzMWUPx4McyljPYGPPER2vhCrm8NDX cbRDzt6xfJu9ivhZ3gmISUaS4/fs20CeMwS1FV0AJhEWPSRQDWfHZXeE9H1+w2zju0pn ORpNz5xUkmA2dbRHkDkV0lt8Pk9i8DckKr4qc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; b=v2FAhmVwjPrfW5wr7SLS1yeIs0ZXN0nS3leUy04JiufQona30DveA159IxWpRk50jU UMnmwfu7tjEi7ZyDCTj1QQHjaBGTKKfcawQAUhboXZOf7QQ3OKMSLXkkNFk193jWDy+9 TLi34TeLVCdXyUjQ3rBFtSKTCAh/AmFZ/unMQ=
Received: by 10.110.84.3 with SMTP id h3mr2730673tib.14.1237272683647; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Foxmail (th024070.ip.tsinghua.edu.cn [59.66.24.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d4sm150348tib.28.2009.03.16.23.51.21 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:51:25 +0800
From: liuyin <liuyin08@gmail.com>
To: 邓辉 <denghui02@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200903171451230321828@gmail.com>
X-mailer: Foxmail 6, 14, 103, 30 [cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====003_Dragon000003252207_====="
Cc: mif <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-ps-02
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:50:42 -0000

Hi,hui
I think the draft tries to do a good job. It's perfect.
Also I have a question, please see in line.
Best regards!

liuyin



  2.2. Merging of parameters 

   In multiple interfaces host, each interface will get its own IP 
   parameters in the procedure of IP address allocation all other policy 
   deployment, 

=> I don't think the expression "all other policy deployment" is good to put here. It does not accord with the syntax, and causes misunderstanding easily. 

   such as DNS, metrics of routings, TOS. How to merge the 
   same type of parameters derived form multiple interfaces to act 
   harmoniously in the host is the problem presented in multiple 
   interfaces host. 


2009-03-17 



liuyin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email