Subject: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses?

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:41:47 -0400

Hello,
 I've been updating the MIF PS draft. I'm trying to catch and summarize
the discussions, conclusions, concensus on the mailing list and during
the BOF. Most of the update is done now, but I just want to clarify
agreement on one topic.

 Reading the mailing list, it is not clear to me if we agreed that the
scope of the MIF is:
a) multiple addresses on more than one interface (as presented to the IP
stack)
b) multiple addresses on one or more interfaces

here interface is a logical abstraction to the IP stack: i.e. maybe
virtual and/or physical.

and somewhat orthogonal is also the admin domain

1) multiple addresses from more than one admin domain (/network)
2) multiple addresses from one or more admin domain

The charter talks about "attaching to multiple networks", with one
example as multiple default routers on the same link.

Therefore, I'm thinking the agreement is b-1:
i.e. multiple addresses on one or more interfaces (as presented to the
IP stack) from more than one admin domain.

Am I right? Am I scoping it correctly?

If yes, does that exclude a-2?: multiple addresses on more than one
interface from one (or more) admin domain?

Comments?

Marc.
-- 
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca

---

From: "Giyeong Son" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:03:10 -0400

My question is, if "2" is valid for MIF, what kind of (use) cases would
be feasible from the perspective of MIF (or attaching to multiple
networks)? So, what is the meaning of "multiple addresses from one admin
domain" from the MIF perspective? 

I think that it may not have any implication on the MIF perspective.
Therefore, I cannot differentiate between 1 and 2 from the MIF
perspective. 

Giyeong  

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Marc Blanchet
Sent: June 1, 2009 1:42 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses?

Hello,

Comments?

Marc.
--
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn
server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news
service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca

_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:24:21 +0200

Hi Marc,

If b) is the scope of MIF, a) is also supported. Did I miss something?

Regards,
Pierrick

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Marc
> Blanchet
> Envoyé : lundi 1 juin 2009 19:42
> À : [email-masked]
> Objet : [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses?
> 
> Hello,

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:01:37 -0400

> If b) is the scope of MIF, a) is also supported. Did I miss something?

humm...
sure, b) includes a); but a) does not include b). But if you read
further down, I'm trying to scope MIF. Therefore, the questions were
more about the set of characteristics, bound together, that define what
a MIF host is.

In other words, what I'm trying to do is define what is a MIF host,
since there was a lot of discussions before on what MIF is and is not.
The questions below were one partial way to scope what a MIF host is.

Marc.

---

From: "Giyeong Son" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:16:42 -0400

I agree with Pierrick.

If multiple addresses on one admin domain does not have any concern from the MIF perspective, it might be better to be more generalized. As a result, we could prevent any circumstance of multiple addresses on one domain for a host that is excluded in the MIF scope although practically MIF could cover it without any issues. 

Best Regards,
Giyeong

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet
Sent: June 2, 2009 9:02 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses?

> If b) is the scope of MIF, a) is also supported. Did I miss something?

humm...
sure, b) includes a); but a) does not include b). But if you read further down, I'm trying to scope MIF. Therefore, the questions were more about the set of characteristics, bound together, that define what a MIF host is.

In other words, what I'm trying to do is define what is a MIF host, since there was a lot of discussions before on what MIF is and is not.
The questions below were one partial way to scope what a MIF host is.

Marc.

>> De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de 
>> Marc Blanchet Envoyé : lundi 1 juin 2009 19:42 À : [email-masked] Objet 
>> : [mif] multiple interfaces or multiple addresses?
>>
>> Hello,
>>  I've been updating the MIF PS draft. I'm trying to catch and 
>> summarize the discussions, conclusions, concensus on the mailing list 
>> and during the BOF. Most of the update is done now, but I just want 
>> to clarify agreement on one topic.
>>
>>  Reading the mailing list, it is not clear to me if we agreed that 
>> the scope of the MIF is:
>> i.e. multiple addresses on one or more interfaces (as presented to 
>> the IP stack) from more than one admin domain.
>>

--
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:09:57 -0400

Hi,
 again, trying to come up with a MIF host definition. Here is a snippet
from the upcoming rev of the draft.

A MIF host is defined as:
- a RFC1122 compliant host
- configured with more than one IP addresses
- on one or more active interfaces, as presented to the IP stack.      -
- The interfaces may be logical, virtual or physical.
- The IP addresses come from one or more administrative domains.
- The IP addresses may be from the same or from different address
families, such as IPv4 and IPv6.
- Communications using these IP addresses may happen simultaneously and
independently.
- While the MIF host may forward packets between its interfaces,
forwarding packets is out of scope of this definition.</t>

Comments?

Marc.

---

From: "Giyeong Son" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:26:44 -0400

I feel that the last item seems to be an item regarding the scope of the
MIF working group. It may not be appropriate to present it as an item of
definition. So, can it be presented in the area that describes the scope
of the MIF working group?

Giyeong 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Marc Blanchet
Sent: June 2, 2009 10:10 AM
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [mif] mif host definition

Hi,

Comments?

Marc.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:35:21 -0400

Hi Marc,

In this message, I am speaking as an individual technical contributor,  
not as a WG chair.

I have some comments (below) on your proposed definition?

> - a RFC1122 compliant host

I believe that this would limit us to v4-only, which is not desirable,  
IMO.
> - Communications using these IP addresses may happen simultaneously  

What is the point of this definition?  Doesn't this encompass all  
hosts on the Internet that have more than one address, including every  
IPv6 node and every IPv4 node with a loopback interface?

IMO, we need to focus our work on IP nodes that have (direct or  
indirect) connectivity to two or more administratively or physically  
distinct networks.  The problems for multi-interface hosts comes in  
when a node needs to decide which of those networks to use for a given  
purpose.

> forwarding packets is out of scope of this definition.</t>

I agree that a MIF node may or may not be a router, but I think it  
would be better to just say that instead of phrasing it this way.

Margaret

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:58:53 -0400

Margaret Wasserman a écrit :
> I believe that this would limit us to v4-only, which is not desirable, IMO.

ok. good catch. although most of RFC1122 text related to MIF is
applicable to v4 and v6. I'll rephrase.

> What is the point of this definition?

the current draft was using "multihomed". That is obviously too
ambiguous given the discussions we have had since weeks. Therefore, I
tried to define what that beast is and use it over the rest of the draft.

>  Doesn't this encompass all hosts
> on the Internet that have more than one address, including every IPv6
> node and every IPv4 node with a loopback interface?

I thought the same thing when I removed the restriction on more than one
admin domain.

> distinct networks. 

agree. That was what I wrote in a previous email. to me, MIF is related
to more than one admin domain. but I've seen different opinions on the
mailing list on this. If we agree that "MIF is about more than one admin
domain, then I'll put it back.

> The problems for multi-interface hosts comes in when
> a node needs to decide which of those networks to use for a given purpose.
> 
> I agree that a MIF node may or may not be a router, but I think it would
> be better to just say that instead of phrasing it this way.
> 

humm... I think "router" may mean many things (running a routing
protocol, do NAT, etc...). That is why I wrote what is to me the key
thing for this discussion: we don't want to work on devices which
forward packets between interfaces. Any text suggestion?

marc.

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 17:19:04 +0800

Late comment
I agree this point, , some people are doing something based on MIF environment.

-Hui

---

From: 陈刚 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:31:39 +0800

> I thought the same thing when I removed the restriction on more than one

I also feel that this sentence doesn't define any specific feature.

-Gang