Hi, On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Fred Templin wrote: > 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.
There is a different perspective to supporting near-term deployments and fostering 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). .. that is, restricting mechanisms based on the least common denominator of Internet does not cut it. As we have up-to 10 Gbit/s links in our network, why again we should limit our use of resources to 10 Kbit/s? :-) One should note that such very constrained environments, like 10 Kbit/s, have to restrict the traffic somehow in any case -- for example, provide the rate-limiting at the edge of such a link. That is, I don't think solving the problem of restricting traffic to fit into these restricted links belongs in this specification. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
