Jack, My thinking that led to the draft was to change the current ND behavior to require spreading the load between multiple default routers. Currently ND does not require this. I noticed the current ND behavior when I wrote the VRRP for IPV6 draft, that there wasn't any mechanism to that required hosts to use more than one default router, even when several existed.
I talked about round robin because it was very simple and would do a reasonable job spreading the traffic. Other approaches are possible, but more complex. The draft could be changed to allow other load sharing mechanisms as well. Bob At 07:48 AM 11/9/2001, Jack McCann wrote: >draft-hinden-ipv6-host-load-sharing-00.txt states: > > > An implementation MUST cycle through the router list in a round- > > robin fashion while making sure it always returns a reachable or > > a probably reachable router when one is available. > >I can see encouraging implementations to do some sort of load sharing, >but why does it have to be round-robin, and why MUST and not SHOULD? > >- Jack > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List >IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng >FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng >Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
