George Tsirtsis wrote:
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 :-)
I agree with you. If, for example, the outcome of is that we should
charger a WG to develop specific standards and/or BCPs for hosts with
multiple addresses, we should charter that effort under a new name. Or
if it were about multiple prefixes, or multiple access networks, or
multiple administrative domains... But, at this point, I think that the
only thing we're sure that we have consensus about is that we run into
trouble in many cases where hosts have multiple interfaces.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf