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

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 that can reach
> multiple next hop routers on its WAN interface select which router to
> forward to?  How does a laptop choose between its WiFi and wired
> interfaces?

that is the purpose of draft-mrw-mif-current-practices... Some answers
are already there.

Marc.

> 
> - Ralph
> 
> On Apr 22, 2009, at 7:03 PM 4/22/09, Christian Vogt wrote:
> 
>> 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 cases the application chooses a destination
>>> address with the stack choosing a source address.  There are certain
>>> cases (sometimes in solutions to the problems that we are discussing
>>> here) where applications do choose both the destination and sourece
>>> address, but they are not common.
>>
>>
>> Margaret -
>>
>> From a system perspective, you are certainly right:  Applications
>> typically do get help from the operating system in selecting their
>> addresses.  From an OSI layering perspective, though, address selection
>> still is performed at application layer.  In fact, if an application
>> wants to do a complete job, especially a peer-to-peer application, it
>> needs to select both source and destination address itself, possibly
>> after running STUN, TURN, or ICE.
>>
>> 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 part or all of address selection.
>>
>> Whether we take this to mean that both issues should be tackled in the
>> same working group is a different story.  I personally don't see the
>> orthogonality of the two issues as a reason not to tackle both issues in
>> the same working group.  We just ought to be aware that the issues are
>> separate, and the charter should describe them as such.  This said,
>> there might be work-load- or work-scope-specific reasons that suggest
>> splitting the work into separate working groups, like those brought up
>> by Lars, Sam, and Scott.  Those arguments should be discussed as well.
>>
>> - Christian
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mif mailing list
>> mif@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

-- 
=========
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