Re: [mif] Five additional problem statements for mif ---- hostrouting
"liuyin" <liuyin08@gmail.com> Wed, 18 March 2009 12:30 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 DBDA63A6B47 for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.952, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45]
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 TkL3WGcRcHYF for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.186]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55F3B3A6A77 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id j3so19424tid.25 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:31:32 -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=twUGYnv0Esa14rn9vKwlh7xUlKB8e6qaDAGtRhmDX+w=; b=UZlfaxyjQrsBEwMAa21Wv/FJY9OExQsXk+irHZPzSMm4lqO1iVfcU7BFB9gEXZKUil zKytqvpIf3aNdcOJxnJ4qcS0gn2HuGgzu3n7wP/5m8ORXVdUkgPP9CP2WUvqAVWFNlx/ e7XdtjG2K+YcKEv6kmBnhEmIWvxCUmfKLZhXc=
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=j/Zv9xwwYsT0iMaYmawWKzIJc4rpa7gxzqIerOoIOxrKcnZalUlZXECNWXcOF2GM9s k/Or9wKvwB9ghCYPbjv2fzEbJ7qKR79Pg2uy4ppHCT6jDGVd3QgiU5W1Ebt3r0cePk/+ YK+tmB0+orW+dXs4ThXaRuqFzK8ioQ2LIyG9o=
Received: by 10.110.68.10 with SMTP id q10mr808924tia.19.1237379491171; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Foxmail (th024070.ip.tsinghua.edu.cn [59.66.24.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u12sm4747tia.18.2009.03.18.05.31.25 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:31:31 +0800
From: liuyin <liuyin08@gmail.com>
To: Min Hui <huimin.cmcc@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200903182031271046233@gmail.com>
X-mailer: Foxmail 6, 14, 103, 30 [cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====003_Dragon521634771667_====="
Cc: mif <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] Five additional problem statements for mif ---- hostrouting
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: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:30:50 -0000
Hi,hui
I think there is a problem in the description. Please see inline. Thanks.
Best regards.
liuyin
2009-03-18
liuyin
发件人： Min Hui
发送时间： 2009-03-18 11:45:44
收件人： mif
抄送：
主题： Re: [mif] Five additional problem statements for mif ---- hostrouting
Hi, everyone
This is the first one: Host routing
The host routing currently follows the default gateway mechanism,
which will choose the unify gateway among more than one default routes
('0.0.0.0'), the detail is described in RFC1122. The default gateway
guarantees there always has a route to network when the host can not
find a specific route for a datagram in the route table.
But when it comes to multiple interfaces situation, the default
gateway mechanism in host routing will let all the IP flows go out
through one interface except some specific assignment (e.g. static
routing item). In this case, the applications can’t use different
interfaces which are the aim of multiple interfaces.
==> This sentence makes me confused. I think it should express like this:
In this case, the applications can't use different interfaces, which against
the aim of multiple interfaces.
The reason is the
application will not appoint a source address in most situations
currently. The source address will be determined by host operating
system after querying the host routing table, if there is any
available routing item for the destination, the corresponding source
address of this routing item will be selected. In most cases, the
routing item of default gateway will be used, so that every
application will use the same interface.
In conclusion, the above host routing mechanism is one of problems in
the way to maintain multiple interfaces work simultaneously.
- 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
>
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif