On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Jack McCann wrote: > draft-hinden-ipv6-host-load-sharing-00.txt states: > > > An implementation MUST cycle through the router list in a round- > > robin fashion while making sure it always returns a reachable or > > a probably reachable router when one is available. > > I can see encouraging implementations to do some sort of load sharing, > but why does it have to be round-robin, and why MUST and not SHOULD?
The idea probably is that if it is MUST, you can rely (up to a certain point) on clients on actually doing load-balancing. Personally, I'm not sure whether this is a right approach. There may be other uses for multiple default routers; for example, fail-over. Some might _not_ want to have forced load sharing there. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
