The name `router` is ambiguous given its usage in other contexts about packet-forward-middleware

[faddat]

yes, absolutely!

we could also call it pfm, that's what we usually call this software internally

[jtieri]

I think pfm or forward are valid choices! typically when I import the middleware into other repos I end up creating an alias called forward

This codebase will soon be migrating to the new ibc-apps repo so maybe that becomes a good time to change the name away from router

[aljo242]

I think a lot of apps already rename the import to packetforward so this might be a good candidate as well.

[Reecepbcups]

Moved to upstream issue now in the maintained repo