On Nov 15, 2012, at 13:04 , james woodyatt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Also, rule 5.5 of RFC 6724 is inadequate. Hosts that implement it should > work better than those that don't because new flows created after the primary > default router becomes unreachable should automatically go to the next > available default router, but existing flows will still be broken in the > absence of the kind of coordination I described previously.
Well, this is just wrong. I didn't think this through completely. Rule 5.5 of RFC 6724 *is* inadequate, but not for precisely the reason I describe above. It would help, but Rule 3 overrides it, and dragons await the unwary sailor who doesn't keep synchronized clocks. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> core os networking _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
