RE: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers"

["Amoakoh Gyasi-Agyei" <a.gyasi-agyei@cqu.edu.au>]

Dear Havard;

I may have to accept that I do share your feelings as I think there's more than enough confusion with the terminologies used in the IT&T industry at the moment. There are many possible letter combinations in the English alphabet alone, so why can't we please use terminologies freed of ambiguities? I already perceive a confusion with the usage of the words "router", "switch" and "hub", etc. by some authors.

Cheers,
AGA

-----Original Message-----
From: Havard Eidnes [mailto:he@uninett.no] 
Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2003 1:43 AM
To: pthubert@cisco.com
Cc: ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com; ipv6@ietf.org; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers"


Hm,

maybe I was unclear -- let me try to clarify.

The distinction between routers and hosts and the criteria to separate between them is one which I perceive as having been well established in Internet technology for a Long Time.  I think we should think twice before obfuscating this distinction, or try to sneak in something which is claimed to be somewhere between them.

I'm therefore reacting negatively to the attempt at abusing the "router" term by introducing new and subtle meaning with a distinction between "ROUTER" and "router".  Choose a different word if you insist on pursuing this, please!

I've heard in other discussions the distinction between hosts implementing a "strong" versus a "weak" model, typically used as a distinguishing additional criteria when hosts are attached to multiple networks and/or have multiple addresses.  However, my local RFC repository does not have any mention of that term.  I wonder if this direction is something which could be pursued.

Regards,

- Håvard

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------