Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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 this a little, I think it's useful to
> frame this in terms of policy (which seems to be the
> direction it's already headed) and identify which
> policies are attributes of which entities.  There are
> policies that apply to the network device (routing,
> for example), policies which apply to an interface
> (filtering and maybe QoS), and policies which apply to
> a network.  I don't think the distinctions are always
> all that clean but I do think it's a useful exercise
> to try to get some clarity around what belongs to whom.
> If nothing else it might help sort out what's a tractable
> problem and what isn't.

Policies are certainly an interesting set of questions raised by these
circumstances.  But they do not stand on their own, they interact with
other concerns.  I don't see any benefit in fragmenting the discussion
so that policies are discussed separately from, say, application level
issues, or network administration issues, or host administration issues
(note that the latter two are not the same), etc.  To the contrary, I
don't think a policy discussion can be realistic unless it's held in
light of those other concerns.

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.

Keith
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]