> I have no doubts that router vendors will ship router preferences. That's > not what I'm concerned with. I'm concerned that host implementors implement > it, or that they don't implement load sharing. That is, a host that simply > picks one default router, and sticks with it as long as it is functional > (until NUD says go elsewhere) I can cope with. A host that implements > router preferences I can cope with. A host that simply insists on picking > any random router that is sending RAs and sends packets at it, and > distributes its load, I cannot cope with - that combination must not be > allowed to happen.
Hmm - I know of a large server vendor who has been spreading the load over multiple default routes for IPv4 for about 10 years. I guess the difference is that even with ICMP router discovery (RFC 1256) there is a preference field so the admins have a knob. Is it just the absense of such a knob to the administator that is lacking? Or is there a need to have a rich set of preferences? (RFC 1256 has 256 different values vs. router preferences has only 3 values). Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
