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 <mo...@network-heretics.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@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
