In your previous mail you wrote: 1) Requirement level of SHOULD would make existing implementations non-compliant. 2) Relationship of this change to Neighbor Discovery and Default Router Preferences draft. Should they be combined? => what we asked is not really a combinaison, it was to get the default router preference not after the load sharing.
The Default Router Preferences draft is an optional mechanism (see the draft). It may not always be used and/or implemented. => I'd like to see the same argument than in (1) applied to the default router preferences! 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. => you know what we'd (people who did comments) like: to get both. 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. => there are situations where load sharing is better and others where it is a disaster. The only good solution is to get load-sharing with a way to control it, i.e. the default router preferences. I sent in July 1995 a mail about default router preferences, I never changed my opinion about this... Regards [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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
