>>>>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 16:17:25 -0800,
>>>>> "Richard Draves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think the algorithm can be helpful without being fully
> deterministic. After all, with different implementation choices
> (most of the provisions are "should"), policy configuration choices,
> and application override, a node's behavior would not actually be
> deterministic anyway. But if the WG wants to add a final tie-breaker
> (like numeric order of the two source addresses) I would not be
> strongly opposed.
I basically agree with you. Perhaps I was not very clear in the
previous message, but my point was:
- If we cared about the prefix length in the longest matching, we
should use a generic length, not hardcoded 64.
- The longest matching algorithm is not so meaningful in the
destination address ordering.
- In any case (about the longest matching), the current algorithm is
not deterministic. If we wanted the deterministic behavior, we'd
need another rule.
And, my preference is (in the appeared order)
1. remove the longest matching rule in the destination address
ordering, or
2. leave the document as is
I don't care about the deterministic behavior (so I don't see the need
to introduce additional rule). Even if we made the algorithm
deterministic, it would not be so meaningful.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
