I agree. This point has been made in previous discussions of the draft...
Tim
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 03:37:24PM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> i have problem understanding the intent of first paragraph of section 2.
>
> >When a host chooses from multiple equivalent routers, it SHOULD
> >support choosing using some method which distributes load for
> >different destinations among the equivalent routers rather than
> >always choosing the same router (e.g., the first in the list).
> >Furthermore, a host that does attempt to distribute load among
> >routers SHOULD use a hash-based scheme, such as those described in
> >[MULTIPATH], which takes the destination IP address into account.
>
> "SHOULD" on the first line seems way too strong to me, if this text
> is targetted to random hosts around. the subject of the sentence is
> not restricted ("a host"), so it seems to me that it includes
> memory/cpu/whatever-restricted hosts too.
>
> i would like to suggest either of the following:
> - change SHOULD to MAY
> - clearly state that this text/document applies only for hosts that
> intentionally support router load balancing/sharing
>
> itojun
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
