Hi, Jari and all It will be good to include that scenario, that scenario already exist and haven't been covered by other working group at the moment. Starting from changeing the working group full name looks like a feasible way. please check comments inline started with ==> 2009/4/18 Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx>: > 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. ==> resolving the issue of multiple default routers in multiple interfaces doesn't really solve the issue of multiple default routers in one single interface. > > 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 agree that hosts with one interface but multiple connections to different networks in scope. This has been the scenarios of many mobile network. I also agree that not necessarily mention whether it is the same or different administrative domains. > > 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? ==> changing the full name is the good way. then charter could be modified correspondense. "The purpose of the MIF working group is to describe the issues of connecting to multiple networks on hosts, document existing practice, and make recommendations about best current practice." Thanks, -Hui > > Jari > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf