Mukesh,
I thought I was being brief, but perhaps I said too much - so let
me rephrase:
Per-interface rate-limiting is: 1) SHOULD
Fred L. Templin
Fred,
Let me make sure that I understand your preference clearly.
Are you saying that we should leave the section 2.4 (f) as
it was in RFC 2463 ?
I think, we already discussed a lot about this and decided
that we will remove the Timer-based and the Bandwidth-based
rate limiting mechanisms and only have the token-bucket
method.
And as far as I understand, Alex didn't want to bring the
Timer-based and Bandwidth-based methods back. He just wanted
the token-bucket method's parameter (N and B) to be
configurable per interface in addition to per node.
Regards
Mukesh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Templin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 5:27 PM
> To: Gupta Mukesh (Nokia-NET/MtView)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ICMPv6: Rate Limiting Configuration Per-Node or
> Per-Interfaces
>
>
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >In your opinion (no reasoning please), the rate limiting
> >configuration per-interface in the ICMPv6 spec should be a
> >
> >1) SHOULD
> >2) MAY
> >3) Any of them is fine for you.
> >
>
> Bandwidth-based per-interface rate limiting is:
>
> 1) SHOULD
>
> In other words, leave current text of [RFC2463], section 2.4
> (f) as-is.
>
> Fred
> [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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
