#23: Prefer 'preference' over 'metric'
At Atlanta WG meeting Behcet reminded an issue was posted on the email
list which is not tracked, that he couldnt upload because he's an Author,
so here I upload it.
Ivo Sedlacek to whom I agree raised this issue, among others, on 24
October 2012 on the mif email list.
> Metric: Route Metric. 8-bit signed integer. The Route Metric
> indicates whether to prefer the next hop associated with
> this prefix over others, when multiple identical prefixes
> (for different next hops) have been received.
This 'Metric' field is absent from the message encoding of Figure 3 "Route
Prefix Option Format".
Besides, in the default route case, a 'metric' is almost always equal 1.
I suppose I suggest to always assume it 1 for the default route case. A
'metric' is the number of hops between self and the subnet prefix for this
next hop.
For other than default routes - I dont know what to put in this metric
field, which is often necessary whenever inserting a routing table entry
(although a 'by default' value is often substituted).
On another hand, a 'Preference' field is what RFC4191 uses, and what this
draft discusses elswhere, like:
> Prf(Route Preference): 2-bit signed integer. The Route
> Preference indicates [...]
I suggest to use this form of Preference throughout the route-option
draft.
At the very least, remove that 'Metric' text quoted first in this issue.
--
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-
alexandru.petrescu@… | option@…
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: trivial | Milestone:
Component: dhcpv6 | Version:
-route-option | Keywords:
Severity: Active WG |
Document |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/23>
mif <http://tools.ietf.org/mif/>
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
