> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > This rule should not exist for IPv4 or IPv6. Longest match
> > does not make a good sorting critera for destination address
> > selection. In fact it has the opposite effect by concentrating
> > traffic on particular address rather than spreading load.
> >
> > I received a request today asking us to break up DNS RRsets
> > as a workaround to the rule. Can we please get a errata
> > entry for RFC 3484 stating that this rule needs to be ignored.
>
> I doubt that. Errata seems like a wrong place to revisit WG decisions.
>
> (I take no stance on the issue itself.)
Errata is a lot faster that getting out a new RFC and will provide
a place that can be referred to in the meantime.
This rule is clearly wrong.
If I have a 192/24 address what make another 192/8 address
better than say 130.155/16 address? Absolutely nothing.
Rule 9 says that all 192/24 address are better than anything
else if you have a 192/24 address.
I don't think there is any real dispute that the rule is bogus.
There is clear evidence that it does actual harm.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
