Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 17:19:19 +0900
From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| If the load sharing is mandated unconditionally, I think I would make
| an objection (I guess I'm not the "only one person"...).
No, I think that meant me ...
| I believe we
| discussed this before and reached a consensus on this, so I won't
| repeat my points (for now).
I thought we had too, which is why the two docs had become one.
| Perhaps the problem is in wording. My understanding of the MUST is
| "if a node implements (some parts of) the draft (which is optional),
| it MUST support the load-sharing algorithm". I don't see any
| contradiction here.
If that's the interpretation, then I also have no problems. However,
that's not the impression that has been given (over and over again).
The impression I keep getting is that load sharing is to be mandatory
(in the sense of must be implemented). And there's no knob anywhere
(other than perhaps visiting every node individually) to allow a net
manager to disable it - or not without router prefs. Which is why
I want router prefs to have no lesser status than load balancing.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
