On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] 神明達哉 wrote: > I agre with Francis. And, actually, our implementation (i.e. all *BSD > variants) basically keeps the same router (of the same priority), so > it will be non-compliant with the SHOULD. I believe our > implementation is not the only example of this "non-compliant" behavior.
True. > If the SHOULD is really the consensus, I'll change the implementation > so that it will be compliant again. However, I'm still not fully > convinced that the change is worth making (perhaps many) existing > applications non-compliant. > > As Francis pointed out, there are many cases of "several default > routers with a better one." In this case, picking up random routers > (without the knowledge of router preference) will just be meangless, > because we'll eventually converge on the better router with redirect > messages. I agree, as I commented on this when the draft first appeared. IMO it's _much_ better practise have predictable behaviour. Load-distribution is not that. When there are two default routes of equal weight, I want to only use one, and if the one I use fails, failover nicely to the other. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
