Folks -
It seems that folks are considering two related, yet still orthogonal
topics for inclusion in the MIF charter:
- Conflicts between configuration parameters.
- Issues with address selection.
(These two topics also span "issues with multiple network connections",
which has been brought u
At the end of the day it doesn't matter what you call it, the fundamental
problem is that the widespread assumptions about a single-interface /
single-address are not realistic in today's Internet, and there are
independent policy realms influencing each end system. The available tool
set is built
Dean Willis wrote:
Consider that peering policy is often driven by things that are well
beyond the scope of protocol. Its potential range of expression is
unlimited; in fact driven by a natural-language contract and heuristic
operations on underspecified constraints derived from that
natural-
On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:04 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
You can call it "foo" for all I care, but much of what's
been discussed so far is policy. From the proposed
charter:
"A host connected to multiple networks has to make decisions about
default router selection, address selection, DNS server sel
Just to let people know, version 10 of this specification addressed my
questions from version 09, and I didn't see any new issues in text that was
added in this version.
Thanks,
Spencer
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on
Keith, Melinda, I believe you are talking about an issue that is distinct from
what was discussed in the BOF.
My personal preference is to see work on what was discussed in the BOF.
However to respond to Jari, I do not have have concerns with the charter as
written.
_
Melinda Shore wrote:
> Keith Moore wrote:
>> And I don't know why you think that the discussion is "already headed"
>> toward policy when the group isn't even chartered yet. Certainly the
>> discussion on the IETF list isn't "already headed" that way.
>
> You can call it "foo" for all I care, but
I'm saying there is a set of problems that exist if there are multiple
addresses associated with a host for any reason. This could be multiple
addresses on a single interface (including aliases and multiple v6
prefixes advertised on the network segment), multiple addresses because
there are multip
Keith Moore wrote:
And I don't know why you think that the discussion is "already headed"
toward policy when the group isn't even chartered yet. Certainly the
discussion on the IETF list isn't "already headed" that way.
You can call it "foo" for all I care, but much of what's
been discussed so
Melinda Shore wrote:
> Keith Moore wrote:
>> I think it's interesting that you appear to consider "multiple addresses
>> per host" a narrower problem than "multiple network connections per
>> host", whereas I consider the latter to be a subset of the former.
>
> Yeah - I do, too.
>
> To expand on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom.Petch wrote:
...
>>> If you're here for a rubber stamp, you came to the wrong WG ;-)
>> Rubber-stamp? No, Joe. The UK CPNI rubberstamp is more than enough, and
>> when it comes to advice on this issues, I believe it's even more
>> credible. Ask t
- Original Message -
From: "Fernando Gont"
To: "Joe Touch"
Cc: ; ; "'Joe Abley'" ;
; "'Lars Eggert'" ; "'Eddy,Wesley M.
(GRC-RCN0)[Verizon]'"
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] [tcpm] draft-gont-tcp-security
>
> Joe Touch wrote:
>
> >> FWIW, vendors are followin
Excerpts from Giyeong Son on Mon, Apr 20, 2009 11:35:14AM -0400:
> For instance, for a dual-mode device at home with WiFi and IP over
> cellular available (e.g. CDMA, GPRS/EDGE, etc), combination of
> various network characteristics in it would be the major factors to
> determine either WiFi or cel
No, I am also interested in "multiple network connections per host", but
my main interesting topic is *simultaneous* if multiple networks (or
multiple interfaces) are available. Sorry for this confusion.
Giyeong
-Original Message-
From: Keith Moore [mailto:mo...@network-heretics.com]
Se
I think that there are many working groups, standard bodies and
technologies who focuses on multiple addresses per host. So, I'd also
like MIF to concentrate on simultaneous connections to multiple networks
(or simultaneous use of multiple connections with multiple networks). I
believe that most o
On March 9, 2009 Alan DeKok wrote...
>Security Section:
>
>There are good reasons to provision USM access so supplement with
>AAA-based access, however.
>
>
> NIT: This doesn't appear to be a sentence.
Yeah. Let's see what that was supposed to say... I think it's:
There are
Are you saying multiple addresses on one interface of the host?
thanks
-Hui
2009/4/21 Keith Moore :
> Jari Arkko wrote:
>> There has been some discussion on whether the key issue is merging
>> configuration from multiple sources (the "DHCP view"), multiple
>> interfaces (the "original view"), m
2009/4/19 Fred Baker
> I assume that the relevant procedures were applied, etc. Is there any
> action that is warranted in other domains, or should this be left to brew in
> your particular teakettle?
Dear Mr. Baker,
If you mean that usual ad-hominems applied against posters without a warning
Overall, I think the charter is good enough and we should ship it.
A few minor comments.
> Many hosts have the ability to attach to multiple networks
> simultaneously. This can happen over multiple physical network
> interfaces, a combination of physical and virtual interfaces (VPNs or
> tunne
Keith Moore wrote:
I think it's interesting that you appear to consider "multiple addresses
per host" a narrower problem than "multiple network connections per
host", whereas I consider the latter to be a subset of the former.
Yeah - I do, too.
To expand on this a little, I think it's useful t
Giyeong Son wrote:
> I think that there are many working groups, standard bodies and
> technologies who focuses on multiple addresses per host. So, I'd also
> like MIF to concentrate on simultaneous connections to multiple networks
> (or simultaneous use of multiple connections with multiple netwo
Jari Arkko wrote:
> There has been some discussion on whether the key issue is merging
> configuration from multiple sources (the "DHCP view"), multiple
> interfaces (the "original view"), multiple default routers (the "routing
> view"), multiple addresses (the "IP layer view"), multiple
> administ
Sam,
We may get an answer of "here are the issues to consider,
here are points on a spectrum and the problems we introduce," but I
think we can only do that if we limit the scope somewhat
Point taken. But can you bring that to a concrete level by stating if
something needs to change or be rem
On 2009-04-21 00:00 Sam Hartman said the following:
...
> In conclusion, I do agree that abuse management for tools.ietf.org is
> necessary. I simply don't believe that assuming all our list/spam
> policies apply makes sense. I think that considering those policies
> and especially the princi
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 ad
David W. Hankins wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 06:08:40PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I'd actually appreciate focus on the multiple interfaces (or multiple
>> network providers) problem. I think that attacking this in full
>> generality is well beyond what we can manage. I think even a focuse
> "David" == David W Hankins writes:
David> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 06:08:40PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I'd actually appreciate focus on the multiple interfaces (or
>> multiple network providers) problem. I think that attacking
>> this in full generality is well beyond wh
> "Fred" == Fred Baker writes:
Fred> On Apr 17, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> My question is whether treating tools.ietf.org aliases as IETF lists
>> is reasonable policy.
Fred> And I would say that yes, they are IETF lists. For example,
Fred> the tracker sends emai
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 sa
Excerpts from Jari Arkko on Tue, Apr 21, 2009 02:40:54PM +0300:
> There has been some discussion on whether the key issue is merging
> configuration from multiple sources (the "DHCP view"), multiple
> interfaces (the "original view"), multiple default routers (the "routing
> view"), multiple
There has been some discussion on whether the key issue is merging
configuration from multiple sources (the "DHCP view"), multiple
interfaces (the "original view"), multiple default routers (the "routing
view"), multiple addresses (the "IP layer view"), multiple
administrative domains (the "ope
Margaret created the name of "MIF" orginally, maybe she has some other thoughts?
like "MAIN" "MAD"
-Hui
2009/4/21 Jari Arkko :
> 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'
Keith,
I certainly agree that it's challenging to attack the generalized
version. However, if you try to solve each version of this problem
separately, the result will be even more complex, less workable, and
less realistic than if you try to look at it from a broader view.
There's a strong pot
Hi, Jari,
What I suggest is like the below:
> Connections to Multiple Networks (mif)
>
> Last Modified: 2009-04-20
>
> Current Status: Proposed Working Group
>
> Chair(s):
> TBD
thanks
-Hui
2009/4/21 Jari Arkko :
> Hui,
>
> I'm not sure if I und
> You are right "money" is more operation related not technical side. However,
> I believe that this is also one of the most important factors and popularly
> has been used for determining an interface with an (access) network among
> multiple active interfaces automatically and dynamically. And
35 matches
Mail list logo
