>> Also, rule 5.5 of RFC 6724 is inadequate. Hosts that implement it should >> work better than those that don't because new flows created after the >> primary default router becomes unreachable should automatically go to the >> next available default router, but existing flows will still be broken in >> the absence of the kind of coordination I described previously. > > Well, this is just wrong. I didn't think this through completely. Rule 5.5 > of RFC 6724 *is* inadequate, but not for precisely the reason I describe > above. It would help, but Rule 3 overrides it, and dragons await the unwary > sailor who doesn't keep synchronized clocks.
rule 3 deprecated addresses. how does that apply? cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
