I agree with Lars.
From: mif-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:mif-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
On Behalf Of
Sent: April 22, 2009 9:42 AM
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: Ted Hardie; Adrian Farrel; mif; Keith Moore; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif)
On 2009-4-21, at 9:00, Sam Hartman wrote:
Keith, I've considered your points and continue to disagree. I'm
mostly replying in the interest of judging consensus.
I believe that the primary use cases identified in the MIF BOF are use
cases that are not going to go away. I think that saying "avoid
multiple addresses" is likely to be the same kind of head-in-sand
thinking that caused us to get where we are today with a number of
areas where there is a disconnect between what the market wants and
what we're willing to include in our engineering model.
Agree with Sam. If you want a host to have a more reliable connectivity
to the network than any one of its interfaces can give it, or if you
want to aggregate capacity of multiple network connections, you have no
choice but to assign it multiple interfaces in today's Internet. Nokia
alone has probably shipped over a billion devices by now that have at
least WLAN + 3G, and there are obviously many other vendors. Any IETF
activity that enables better use of those interfaces simultaneously is
consequently very interesting.
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information, privileged material (including material protected by the
solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public
information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your
system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission
by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Ietf mailing list