Re: [mif] Five additional problem statements for mif----Different metric measurements

Min Hui <huimin.cmcc@gmail.com> Wed, 18 March 2009 03:51 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=d3ahtqF3yqnR8dxzUIrSYpNxqBlXnyZr0clgn7H4tRe1AYTdPUvuXv+r6Op8L+VK5d CqaGSU0fTWrumoL0jS1Go5n6MuBbMoaNZuyiEOUh73/7+MjNPEm2kPdEx32ID8De+rfn Hdw5l/p563Wo/TX1HuS3va63fAhkOHsrtIa8A=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:52:21 +0800
Message-ID: <5dca10d30903172052h16ad160cv99df5f7e0254aedb@mail.gmail.com>
From: Min Hui <huimin.cmcc@gmail.com>
To: mif <mif@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [mif] Five additional problem statements for mif----Different metric measurements
Precedence: list

Hi, all

This is the third one: Different metric measurements

Metrics are used to measure the performance of routings, the lower
metric it owns, the higher priority it has. For example, the default
gateway is chosen based on the metric rule as RFC1122 description, The
one have the lowest metric value becomes to the default gateway among
several connected gateways, and the interface correspond to this
gateway turns to be the default interface.
Metric rules are different depending on the access technology and
routing protocol, if the multiple interfaces connect to multiple
access networks which have different measurements of metrics, the
comparing of metrics will be meaningless. However, the current
operating system really does this to choose routing among several
different networks in multiple interfaces situation. For example,
current metric rules define the 100M bps Ethernet network card to be
20 and 10M bps to be 30, but the CDMA data card set its metric value
as 1, although its speed is lower than 100M bps Ethernet network card,
and the host will choose the CDMA data card as the default network
card. This problem confuses the selection of routing in multiple
interfaces situation.

- Hui Min

2009/3/18 Min Hui <huimin.cmcc@gmail.com>:
> Hi, all mif fans
>
> I have viewed the agenda of mif bof, and I notice some problem
> statements for mif are not concluded in the current ps documents which
> will be discussed in the meeting.
> So I post these additional problems in the mail list for discussion,
> all of them come from the draft
> "draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-ps-02" with some modifications
> according to the comments received recently.
> There are five problems in addition, which will be proposed in five
> separated mails in order to have sufficient discussion for each of
> them.
> Five mails will be sent out following this mail, the structure is:
> 1. Host routing
> 2. DNS selection
> 3. Different metric measurements
> 4. Source address selection for IPv4
> 5. TOS consideration
>
> Any comment is welcomed, and thanks for your notice.
>
> BR,
> - Hui Min
>

Re: [mif] Five additional problem statements for … Min Hui
Re: [mif] Five additional problem statements for … Lars Eggert
Re: [mif] Five additional problem statements for … Min Hui