Instead of trying to reply each email I will attempt to summarize and respond to the comments in the last set of email.
1) Requirement level of SHOULD would make existing implementations non-compliant. I believe that the definition of SHOULD (see RFC2119) allows for alternate behavior if there is a good reason for it. I think this can cover both better algorithms for the selection of default routers and if the implementation predates this spec. I will note that the intent of the this document is to change the default behavior of implementations. That is way I think SHOULD is appropriate. Also, I think this is independent of the level of the standard (Proposed, Draft, Standard). 2) Relationship of this change to Neighbor Discovery and Default Router Preferences draft. Should they be combined? The reason why the conclusion of the w.g. in Salt Lake City was to keep the documents separate is that this document is changing the base behavior of Neighbor Discovery when there is more than one default router. The Default Router Preferences draft is an optional mechanism (see the draft). It may not always be used and/or implemented. It was agreed that the Router Preferences draft should also incorporate this behavior when there are more than one router of the same preference. Note this draft is not replacing the router preferences draft. Both are expected to go forward. This draft only changes the case when there is more than one default routers. It does not provide the optimum solution when there are multiple routers with different characteristics. That case is covered by the router preferences draft. 3) General statement load-distribution is not predictable behavior and is undesirable (e.g., using a single router until it fails is better). There is considerable current practice that disputes this. The specific case that this draft addresses (host to router traffic) is very widely deployed using protocols such as VRRP and Cisco's HSRP. The advantage of distributing the load over multiple routers is that it takes advantage of the resources that are available and insures that the backup is working when it is needed. Backup systems that are not being used have a nasty habit of not working when they are needed. Regards, 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
