[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Section 2.4, item (f) of draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-04.txt

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Alex Conta wrote:
> The per node, and per interface mechanisms can coexist.

Sure.  But why don't we just specify per node mechanisms, and leave it
up to the implementors if they wish to have per interface mechanisms
as well?

> "The rate-limiting parameters SHOULD be configurable per node.
> If a node has dissimilar speed/bandwidth interfaces, the rate-limiting 
> parameters SHOULD be configurable per interface.

I must remain in opposition for this.  Speed/bandwidth based
approaches are not recommended in any case; unless you do them
per-interface, they're almost always totally useless -- which is a
good reason not to use them (as the draft recommends), but use the
token-based limiter instead.

Token bucket-based limiter is just simply much better.  It works well 
with lower speed interfaces (not being too restrictive), with high 
speed interfaces (not allowing too much), and can be implemented on a 
per-node basis.

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
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6