Hi,(I'm only starting to follow this group, so I hope my question was not discussed before...)
I'd like to come back on the discussion on a MIF host as defined in draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-00.
In the former WG Monami6, we worked on the following document: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-03.txtwhere we also proposed a definition for a multihomed node. We came up with the following definitions:
Interface
A node's point of attachment to a link (as defined in [5])
Multihomed Node
A node (either a host or a router) is multihomed when it has
several global IPv6 addresses to choose between, i.e. in the
following cases when it is either:
* multi-prefixed: multiple prefixes are advertised on the
link(s)
the node is attached to, or.
* multi-interfaced: the node has multiple interfaces to choose
between, on the same link or not.
Basically it says that a node is multi-homed as soon as it has
multiple addresses of the same scope, from which it can choose to send
data packets. What was good IMHO in this definition, is that it is
concise and does not try to cover all cases where you can end up in
that case.
So for the purpose of draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-00, I would suggest to keep the definition very short, and then have examples in another section that show how a host can be multi-homed / MIF (several interfaces, several administrative domains, etc).
In the same sense, I think that the bullet "Communications using these IP addresses may happen simultaneous and independently." should not be in the definition, but again, in some explanations of scenarios.
Regards, Nicolas
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.