Francis, >I have two concerns about this: > - the random order is not defined (this is a formal concern because > the intention is clear)
I think most people will understand the intent of "random order". Does anyone else think more definition is needed? If so, I could add some text. > - we moved from an implementation hint to a SHOULD, this will make > old implementations not conformant and in some situations there > can be far better solutions. So I prefer to get a MAY (enough to > get this proposal implemented in the future by everybody without > harm) and an explicit reference to the default router preference > draft (first because I am in favor of this from the beginning, > i.e. since many years, second because this is the best reply to > the "special case" argument (not so special case because 100% of > the IPv6 networks I used have several routers with a better one)). I disagree. The intent of the document is to change the behavior from a hint to a common behavior. Hence the SHOULD. Note that the current "hint" for round robin is less than perfect. I think the current implementations are covered by the SHOULD. If it was a MUST there might be a problem with current behavior. In Salt Lake City where the issue of combining this with the default router preferences was discussed, the consensus was to keep this separate. The plan was to also add this behavior to the default router preferences draft for the case where there are multiple routers at the same preference. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
