In your previous mail you wrote: On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Francis Dupont wrote: > In your previous mail you wrote: > > I would like to hear from people who would like to keep the > Timer-based and Bandwidth-based methods with logical reasons. > > => Even if Token-based is the best method it can be a bit expensive > to implement (code size and memory requirements) on very small devices > so I am not convinced we should remove simpler methods... IMHO the > Timer-based method with proper parameters (i.e., one ICMP per tick > with a 50Hz clock) should be kept. Note that very small devices are > not router in general (and never core routers, cf traceroute concerns). I have to disagree here. Even if a very small device was not a router, it would have to respond to traceroutes etc., even though with lower probability that multiple ones would be happening simultaneously. But still, if e.g. a "dumb" host is connected to a network, and someone close by (e.g. 3-4 hops) sends a traceroute, the packets could be sent e.g. 1 ms apart. Any timer-based mechanism is inappropriate, unless it has some kind of "burst allowance", which was what Robert Elz also argued for -- but that's token-based filter just with different words. => it seems you are confusing ping and traceroute: even a (too) stupid rate-limiting device is never a problem on the target of a traceroute because when one'd like to test reachability one uses ping (with the standard one second delay between probes).
So, I'd say, keep only token-based filter as an example, but if it seems important one could explain, e.g. in an appendix, why timer/bandwidth -based mechanisms aren't sufficient on their own. In any case, I believe it's important to document that being able to send the packets in burst is an important characteristic of the filter. => IMHO traceroute is not the good argument here. > PS: this topics seems more a v6ops one, doesn't it? The operational requirements (traceroute, etc.), yes, but this is being revised at this WG so it should probably be OK.. => this is an operational issue so the requirements should come from the v6ops WG and then we could see if token-based method should be made mandatory. Because today the only argument we have is for rate-limitation using any reasonable method. Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
