Mark, >While I haven't read Bob's draft, so my comments may be naive, but RFC 2991
Yes, please read the draft! >"Multipath Issues in Unicast and Multicast Next-Hop Selection" seems to >recommend against round robin loadsharing, and arguably recommend against >per packet load sharing at all. The load sharing being proposed here in not per packet. It is invoked when the host needs to send traffic to a destination it has not sent to recently (i.e., when no destination cache entry exists for an off-link destination). This destination approach is part of Neighbor Discover (RFC2461). >While the RFC is about routers performing the loadsharing over multiple >paths, I would think the issues it raises would probably also apply to >hosts. The issues are similar. Load sharing approaches that don't keep flows together are not a good thing. Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
