Can't find Bob's original email ! So I'll respond to this part. > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Bob Hinden wrote: > > Another approach is add text to make it clear that when > there are multiple > > administrative domains involved that the preferences can > only be compared > > it they are being set in the same manner.
=> In theory that is feasible, but let's consider the basic problem: One domain is advertising to one or more hosts. The router has no clue which other domains this host is connected to. So (especially on shared media) there is no way that a generic RA can do this. Unless the RA includes all domain identities that it has agreements with... just too hard. I can't imagine domain admins organising meetings to decide on how they would set the preference values :) I think we should just add text to say that this value can not be compared when received from different administrative domains. I don't think > there is any > > simple automatic way of doing this (and I think we would > want to avoid some > > sort of policy certificates....). => Agreed. > > > > This is probably another reason why only a few preference > values are needed. => The only difference I see between having a small range of values vs a large range is that a large range would give better granularity. Either way, the draft should really give some rough guidlines on what each preference means. Even if they're not used across different domains. Pekka wrote: > > Well, it would be possible chop off a few more reserved > bits (e.g. 2), and > make this "domain of applicability" preference: two > preferences would only > be valid inside the same "domain" class. > > But this relies on the advertising parties making this right.. and > otherwise sounds like a bad (==unnecessary) idea too. => eeehh, yeah I agree it's unnecessay. For hosts to decide to route their traffic through a different domain or do some load balancing we need a lot more than what the draft currently specifies, just KISS. Hesham PS: I'm obviously thinking of a mobile host that might have several differnt flows and would like to route these flows through the right access, depending on the characteristics of this access. This draft is more relevant to a dedicated server (e.g. HTTP) that needs to load balance traffic between two links. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
