[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 Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Fred Templin wrote:
> You are side-stepping my question and twisting it into
> a matter of what is currently done vs. what is best.
> 
> What is our goal here: to get IPv6 deployed in the right
> way, or to preserve the "legacy" deployed IPv6 base?

No, I'm not sidestepping.  I think I've quite clearly stated that IMHO
not having interface-specific limiters is best for deployment: having
them just adds extra complexity, and seems to encourage to use
bandwidth-based limiters, which are not a good idea.  If you use token
bucket based mechanisms, you don't need to care about interface
speeds.

What's deployed out there is just one argument why we don't need to
specify interface-specific counters at all (or even if we wanted to
point it out, definitely not as a SHOULD).

In the revision, we've definitely already done some changes which have
made some legacy nodes non-compliant, e.g., by recommending against
timer-based approaches (which, unfortunately, have been implemented)  
so that's not a big problem as such.

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