Fred, I agree with Pekka here. The text you suggested does look like a little too much overconcerned.
The text that Pekka suggested, sounds agreeable to me. I think talking about Rate Limiting a little bit and making some suggestions to the implementor should be enough. There are too many variables involved in choosing the right method and the appropriate default values and this does not affect any interoperability. So we should let each vendor decide what to do. Regards Mukesh > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ext > Fred Templin > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:37 AM > To: Pekka Savola > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Proposal for rate limiting parameters > > > > Pekka Savola wrote: > > > Designing for this kind of "vastly different capacities in > > each direction" just don't seem to be worth considering here. > > I have to disagree; I believe there is a clear need to design > for diverse link bandwidths to support near-term deployments > and to foster future innovation. > > 10Kbps seems the best value for LCD, given commonly-deployed > links that will see continued use into the future (see BCP > documents produced by the PILC working group). 10Kbps also > provides the useful characteristic that it is the bandwidth > required to realize a 1 second delay budget for transmitting > a 1280 byte packet. > > Would be interested to hear other opinions on this. > > Fred L. Templin > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
