On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Mark Andrews wrote: > This rule should not exist for IPv4 or IPv6. Longest match > does not make a good sorting critera for destination address > selection. In fact it has the opposite effect by concentrating > traffic on particular address rather than spreading load. > > I received a request today asking us to break up DNS RRsets > as a workaround to the rule. Can we please get a errata > entry for RFC 3484 stating that this rule needs to be ignored.
I doubt that. Errata seems like a wrong place to revisit WG decisions. (I take no stance on the issue itself.) -- 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 mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
