> I suspect that part of the problem is that the relationship (or at least
> what I would like the relationship to be) isn't clear.
>
> That is, if load sharing is done, router preferences MUST be done as well.
>
> So, whatever status we give to load sharing, router preferences has to have
> at least the same status. I'm not sure that got adequately represented in
> the draft.
Given that load sharing is currently described as mandatory, your point
implies that router preferences should also be mandatory.
Perhaps others have different views. Given the 3 pieces
load sharing,
router preference,
more specific routes (which have preference a load sharing themselves)
we might have the following choices (I can't think of other combinations that
make sense to me):
1. all are optional
2. load sharing is mandatory; others are optional
3. load sharing and router preferences are mandatory; more specific is optional
4. all are mandatory
The current document says #2. Your point is #3 as far as I can tell.
I guess the WG needs to choose.
But independent of this, if is confusing to have both mandatory and optional
protocol pieces in the same document if it can be easily avoided.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
