The Multiple Interfaces (mif) working group in the Internet Area of the
IETF is undergoing rechartering. The IESG has not made any determination
yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for
informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG
mailing list (iesg
On Saturday 25 April 2009 22:32:35 ext Christian Huitema wrote:
A host may have multiple default gateways on the same interface.
However, those gateways should be usable interchangeably. All of those
gateways should have the same values for the properties above.
Otherwise, I would argue
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi?= Denis-Courmont remi.denis-courm...@nokia.com
On Saturday 25 April 2009 22:32:35 ext Christian Huitema wrote:
There are obvious examples where multiple gateways make sense. For
example, a home network could have routers attached to different
broadband
Hi, Ted,
Excuse me for late reply, thanks for the discussion.
The reason why I said before is that currently there are limtied ISP
providing ICE support for open applications, anyhow, P2P made a smart
way to reach it.
For what I know application which need ICE like IMS is normally go to
Christian,
I agree with what you said here, MIF should tackle this thoroughly.
I just wondering whether any ISP provider ICE service for open applications?
maybe my limited knowledge.
Regards,
-Hui
2009/4/24 Christian Vogt christian.v...@ericsson.com:
On Apr 23, 2009, Hui Deng wrote:
For
Thomas,
Overall, I think the charter is good enough and we should ship it.
Thanks and thanks for your review.
I have made a small revision of the text to accommodate your comments.
This revision includes the removal of the BCP document. I am hoping that
also helps in other problems
Marc Blanchet wrote:
Jari Arkko a écrit :
This revision includes the removal of the BCP document. I am hoping that
also helps in other problems people had with this charter, as it becomes
even clearer that the WG will not develop solutions, its really only
about describing the problem and
Let me try again, with an informational document as suggested by Marc:
Multiple InterFaces (mif)
Last Modified: 2009-04-23 18:20
Current Status: Proposed Working Group
Chair(s):
TBD
Internet Area Director(s):
Ralph Droms rdr...@cisco.com
Jari
Excerpts from Jari Arkko on Thu, Apr 23, 2009 06:19:55PM +0300:
Let me try again, with an informational document as suggested by
Marc:
Fine with me. As the work evolves, we can always change our minds
and make it a BCP after all.
___
Ietf mailing
Ted Hardie wrote:
...
Perhaps it is just me; this is not stuff I am following in any depth.
But the
impression I'm getting from following the thread is that there is some
disagreement about how to structure the work to make sure it really
does reduce pain, rather than just shift it around.
For what I know at the moment service provider deployment experience,
ICE like solution has been deployed by a dedicate close network, this
is not interact with MIF space we talked here, mif are resolve general issue
with host connections, in that scenario, application is isolated.
thanks.
-Hui.
This type of implementation is not transparent to application, kind of
binding everything together, what mif is trying to do is to avoid it.
thanks
-Hui
2009/4/23 Christian Huitema huit...@windows.microsoft.com:
(2) There is no way that these decisions can be made solely at the
transport or
Hi, Marc,
Normally, host vendors normally really do not like to open this interface,
but anyhow it is more solution oriented, let's discuss it after.
-Hui
2009/4/23 Marc Blanchet marc.blanc...@viagenie.ca:
Christian's suggestion is one way. not sure it is complete.
but I don't agree with you
To: Christian Vogt
Cc: mif; Margaret Wasserman; Sam Hartman; Scott Brim; David W. Hankins;
Keith Moore; Hui Deng; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif)
Christian - I think address selection is part but not all of the
problem.
I would be happy to see a summary of current
...@ietf.org
To: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org; MIF Mailing List m...@ietf.org
Sent: Wed Apr 22 19:07:16 2009
Subject: Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif)
Excerpts from Christian Vogt on Wed, Apr 22, 2009 04:03:39PM -0700:
My main point, though, was that we are talking about two
. Hankins;
Keith Moore; Hui Deng; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif)
Christian - I think address selection is part but not all of the
problem.
I would be happy to see a summary of current practice in dealing with
simultaneous attachment to multiple networks. How
Ralph Droms a écrit :
Christian - I think address selection is part but not all of the problem.
I would be happy to see a summary of current practice in dealing with
simultaneous attachment to multiple networks. How does an iPhone decide
between its WiFi and dell interfaces? How does an RG
Christian's suggestion is one way. not sure it is complete.
but I don't agree with you (Deng): i.e. I think this suggestion is in
scope of MIF wg. Maybe the outcome of the wg is a best practice document
that tells application developers how to write good applications in
context of MIF, where one
-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ralph Droms
Sent: April 23, 2009 12:08 AM
To: Christian Vogt
Cc: mif; Margaret Wasserman; Sam Hartman; Scott Brim; David W. Hankins;
Keith Moore; Hui Deng; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif)
Christian - I think address
Jari Arkko a écrit :
This revision includes the removal of the BCP document. I am hoping that
also helps in other problems people had with this charter, as it becomes
even clearer that the WG will not develop solutions, its really only
about describing the problem and existing practices.
On Apr 22, 2009, Ralph Droms wrote:
Christian - I think address selection is part but not all of the
problem.
I would be happy to see a summary of current practice in dealing with
simultaneous attachment to multiple networks. How does an iPhone
decide
between its WiFi and dell interfaces?
On Apr 23, 2009, Hui Deng wrote:
For what I know at the moment service provider deployment experience,
ICE like solution has been deployed by a dedicate close network, this
is not interact with MIF space we talked here, mif are resolve general
issue with host connections, in that scenario,
We discussed this topic in today's IESG call and approved the working
group with the charter I send earlier (copied below).
A couple of additional notes: I think this discussion has been extremely
useful, and a good starting point for writing the problem definition. I
certainly have learned
On 2009-4-21, at 9:00, 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
I agree with Christian that there are two orthogonal issues. Comments
in line...
- Ralph
On Apr 22, 2009, at 1:19 AM 4/22/09, Christian Vogt wrote:
Folks -
It seems that folks are considering two related, yet still orthogonal
topics for inclusion in the MIF charter:
- Conflicts between
Lars,
- Conflicts between configuration parameters.
- Issues with address selection.
I agree that both of these are important and should be worked on (and
with the rest of your email, basically).
The first one is what I thought MIF would be focusing on, as an INT WG
is IMO the right
I agree with Lars.
Giyeong
-Original Message-
From: mif-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mif-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Lars Eggert
Sent: April 22, 2009 9:42 AM
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: Ted Hardie; Adrian Farrel; mif; Keith Moore; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple InterFaces
Jari Arkko a écrit :
But my main point is that the MIF charter covers -- on purpose -- a
relatively large problem area. We need to describe the problem as
experienced by real-life implementations without constraining ourselves
too much at this stage. Once we finally understand the problem
I don't see any compelling reason to change the name of this group at
this point...
We obviously could change the name if we wanted to, but it would
significant cost -- setting up a new mailing list, getting everyone
subscribed there, renaming all of the drafts (and thus losing the edit
Keith Moore 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
George Tsirtsis wrote:
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
Hui Deng wrote:
Hi, Jari,
What I suggest is like the below:
Connections to Multiple Networks (mif)
Personally, I think that this sort of disconnect between WG name and
acronym would create long-lived confusion about the name of the
Multiple InterFaces (mif)
Last Modified: 2009-04-20
I like this version of the charter very much. I think it does a good
job of capturing the area that we need to discuss within MIF. I am
hopeful that we can get our charter approved ASAP, so
Dean Willis wrote:
My shaman once said For God, everything is just a question of
policy. But, we need to reduce this problem to a more mortal scope,
and I'm not quite certain that the proposed charter text accomplishes
this goal.
I agree with you that this is a complex problem. The
Christian Vogt wrote:
The second topic talks about a problem of applications: When initiating
a connection, which pair of source and destination address (and
consequently which pair of interfaces) should be used? Again, this
issue may come up independently of whether a host has one or
Hi Lars,
Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2009-4-22, at 2:19, Christian Vogt wrote:
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.
I agree that both of these
If you are saying multiple address for multiple interface, that's fine.
but if you are talking multiple address for single interface, could you help to
point out any IPv4 scenario except VPN,
MIF is targeting at least half billion of subscribers who have this
real problem,
The problems you raised
If anyone is looking for a theme for a t-shirt at any upcoming IETF, this
one would be awesome...
:-)
Spencer
There is an old saw that my work is a cross-layer optimization; yours is
a layer violation, and that guy's is a hideous hack.
___
Excerpts from Margaret Wasserman on Wed, Apr 22, 2009 10:29:07AM -0400:
Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2009-4-22, at 2:19, Christian Vogt wrote:
It seems that folks are considering two related, yet still orthogonal
topics for inclusion in the MIF charter:
- Conflicts between configuration parameters.
Excerpts from Ted Hardie on Wed, Apr 22, 2009 10:21:10AM -0700:
At 7:29 AM -0700 4/22/09, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
(1) As I pointed out in my previous message to Christian, address
selection is not (today) a transport-layer or application-layer function
in most cases. Given that this is
At 1:55 PM -0700 4/22/09, Scott Brim wrote:
As I understand it, the ICE client is not deciding on what address to
use on its packets, it is _discovering_ what address it is using and
then communicating that to its peers as payload (not providing it as
fodder for a forwarding function).
I think
(2) There is no way that these decisions can be made solely at the
transport or application layer, because source (and to a lesser degree
destination) address selection is tightly tied to the first-hop
forwarding decision. The outbound interface, source address and default
router all have to
On Apr 22, 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
This topic, address selection, is not currently handled by
applications.
In many cases, it is handled entirely by the stack (through ordering
of
the destination ddresses in DNS replies and source address selection
in
the IP stack), and in other
Excerpts from Christian Vogt on Wed, Apr 22, 2009 04:03:39PM -0700:
My main point, though, was that we are talking about two orthogonal
issues -- conflicting configuration and address selection. This
holds independently of the fact that an application may let the
operating system accomplish
On Apr 22, 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
(2) There is no way that these decisions can be made solely at the
transport or application layer, because source (and to a lesser degree
destination) address selection is tightly tied to the first-hop
forwarding decision. [...]
Margaret -
FWIW:
Christian - I think address selection is part but not all of the
problem.
I would be happy to see a summary of current practice in dealing with
simultaneous attachment to multiple networks. How does an iPhone
decide between its WiFi and dell interfaces? How does an RG that can
reach
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 jari.ar...@piuha.net:
Hui,
I'm not
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
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 operational
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
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
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
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
administrative
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
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
Are you saying multiple addresses on one interface of the host?
thanks
-Hui
2009/4/21 Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com:
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
Subject: Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif)
Keith == Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com writes:
Keith It seems to me that the general problem is not multiple
Keith interfaces, but multiple addresses per host. It doesn't
Keith matter (much) whether those addresses result
]
Sent: April 21, 2009 10:21 AM
To: Giyeong Son
Cc: Sam Hartman; Ted Hardie; Adrian Farrel; mif; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif)
Giyeong Son wrote:
I think that there are many working groups, standard bodies and
technologies who focuses on multiple addresses
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
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 far
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.
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
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
: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif)
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
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 up
-
From: mif-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mif-boun...@ietf.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
Giyeong Son wrote:
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
Hui,
I'm not sure if I understood your comment about the WG name correctly.
We cannot change it at this stage easily. So lets just keep it as is.
Please find below the full charter proposal, with the suggested changes
folded in from you and others.
Jari
Multiple InterFaces (mif)
At 1:14 PM -0700 4/20/09, Jari Arkko wrote:
Hui,
I'm not sure if I understood your comment about the WG name correctly.
We cannot change it at this stage easily. So lets just keep it as is.
Huh? Why on earth is it hard? Strings are cheap.
Not that I care much about this, but having been in
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
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
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
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
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
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area. The IESG
has not made any determination as yet. The following draft charter was
submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send
your comments to the IESG mailing list (i...@ietf.org) by Tuesday, April
21,
75 matches
Mail list logo
