Hi all,
Jari seems to be using the term of "connection" in his emails as
"association between an interface and an (access) network". When I used
"connection" so far during email exchanges, I have used it as more
likely "routing or routable path for packet transmission" in an abstract
manner. I feel that different usage of the same word "connection" may
consequence confusion or misinterpretation to the audiences.
Therefore, it might be better to clarify it in terms of MIF so that
everybody can be in the same page without any confusion or
misinterpretation:-)
Giyeong
-----Original Message-----
From: mif-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:mif-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
On Behalf Of
Jari Arkko
Sent: April 18, 2009 5:25 AM
To: IETF Discussion
Cc: Adrian Farrel; mif
Subject: Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif)
I wanted to bring up a comment that was raised during the IESG and IAB
discussions about this charter by Adrian and others.
When the work started, it was clearly about multiple interfaces. Upon
closer inspection, we have realized that the overall problem is somewhat
larger. Problems that occur with multiple interfaces also occur even
with one interface, when you have a number of default routers on the
same link. The current charter text reflects this in some parts of the
text, e.g.,
Many hosts have the ability to connect to multiple networks
simultaneously. This can happen over multiple physical network
interfaces, a combination of physical and virtual interfaces (VPNs or
tunnels), or even through multiple default routers being on the same
link.
However, it was pointed out that the text is not consistent. Other parts
still talk about multiple interfaces, e.g.,
A number of operating systems have implemented various techniques to
deal with multiple interfaces. Some devices employ only one interface
at a time and some allow per-host configuration of preferences between
the interfaces but still use just one at a time. Other systems allow
per-application preferences or implement sophisticated policy managers
that can be configured by users or controlled externally.
The purpose of the MIF working group is to describe the issues
surrounding the use of multiple interfaces on hosts, document existing
practice, and make recommendations about best current practice.
This has created some confusion with regards to what really is in scope.
Are hosts with multiple physical interfaces in scope (obviously yes)?
Are hosts with multiple virtual or physical interfaces in scope (yes)?
Are hosts with one interface but multiple connections to different
networks in scope (I think they should be)? Are we only talking about
multiple interfaces or connections when they are to different
administrative domains (I do not think it really matters, even in one
domain the parameters can be different)?
I would like to solicit suggestions on how to modify the text to be
fully aligned. Note: we need to keep the name of the group the same, as
it something that is already familiar to people, not to mention the fact
that the IETF database system does not allow an acronym change very
easily.
Would it be enough to change s/multiple interfaces/connections to
multiple networks/ in the second quoted text excerpt?
Jari
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf