Keith,
I think this (multiple IP addresses) is one issue this WG seems to
want to deal with.
Another one is the availability of multiple paths (next hop routers)
for a given destination.
It seems indeed that whether the source addresses, and even the
paths/routes, are over different physical interfaces or not, is
somewhat secondary.
There is, however, significance in the presence of different
interfaces in a given non-router node...I do not think either of the
other two points (multiple IFs, multiple routes) should be lost
completely in the effort to widen/clarify the charter.
George
P.S.: It would be kind of funny to figure out that this WG really has
nothing to do with Multiple IFs, and yet maintain the MIF name... it
would enhance the already obscure tradition of nonsensical terms like
BOFs, RFCs etc ..not to mention other rather funny WG names :-)
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
It seems to me that the general problem is not multiple interfaces, but
multiple addresses per host. It doesn't matter (much) whether those
addresses result from multiple physical interfaces, a combination of
physical and virtual network interfaces, multiple prefixes being
advertised on the network attached to any particular interface, or even
a mixture of v4 and v6.
So that might have some impact on the name, particularly if you want to
attract the breadth of interests whom this affects. Something like
Hosts Addressed Multiply (HAM), perhaps?
Keith
p.s. and if the software can't deal with changing a wg name before it's
chartered, seems like that should result in a change request for the
software. we really want to resist having our tools make the rules by
which we operate, rather than the other way around.
Ted,
Huh? Why on earth is it hard? Strings are cheap.
On some previous WG creation exercise I was told that once the WG
creation process is in the IETF's database system, the WG acronym cannot
be changed, you can delete it and create a new one, but you cannot the
acronym. Of course, I could create a new one and ask it to be brought to
the right state... hopefully without having to re-do any real-life
steps, like announcements going out or the topic being on the IESG
telechat. This might work, but I'd have to investigate further to ensure
that it actually is possible. If it was the only problem I would.
The other problem is that people may already recognize the name. And I
don't have a nice replacement acronym in mind. Multple Interfaces is a
very concrete description of the problem, even if its not the most
generic one. Multiple Attachments to Networks (MAN, but too close to
6MAN), Connections to Multiple Networks (CMN, a bit boring), etc. But
its too late in the day here to be creative. I'm sure someone sends the
coolest acronym in reply :-)
Bottom line: not impossible, but requires some effort.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf