Hi Albert, Instead of mandating every protocol, would it be helpful to further break the functionality into two subclasses and have seperate requirements in such cases. I do not like the idea of having to impose a superset of the requirements for all such nodes.
In my view such functionality should kept to the minimum. Thanks, Vishwas On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Manfredi, Albert E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > NIST's goal was probably, "some implementations on the field just > > support static and maybe RIPng. We want to mandate something more > > scalable, and OSPFv3 is as good an option as any". > > I completely agree. And, if the NIST Profile were directed at commodity > router vendors, e.g. for enterprise networks of Govt agencies, there > would be some logic in that. However, all IPv6 networks owned and > operated by the Government are not that sort of network. This is similar > to Alain Durand's point about cable modems, where you want the smallest > possible memory footprint when supplying the needed services. > > Bert > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
