On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Robert Elz wrote: > I have no doubts that router vendors will ship router preferences. That's > not what I'm concerned with. I'm concerned that host implementors implement > it, or that they don't implement load sharing. That is, a host that simply > picks one default router, and sticks with it as long as it is functional > (until NUD says go elsewhere) I can cope with. A host that implements router > preferences I can cope with. A host that simply insists on picking any > random router that is sending RAs and sends packets at it, and distributes its > load, I cannot cope with - that combination must not be allowed to happen.
I share Robert and Francis' view. There is also the possibility that misconfigured hosts will send RAs; having these targetted by load sharing hosts will only add to the pain of such events. > If we get both mechanisms, actually implemented in hosts, that's just fine. > If we get Router Prefs as a PS, and require its implemenation in hosts, then > that's also fine. If your doc says "MUST NOT implement unless router > prefs is also implemented", then that's fine as well. I would assume a reasonable mode of working is to only load share between routers of equal preference, rather than some "random" algorithm picking routers weighted by preference. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
