On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Francis Dupont wrote:
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>    I would like to hear from people who would like to keep the
>    Timer-based and Bandwidth-based methods with logical reasons.
>    
> => Even if Token-based is the best method it can be a bit expensive
> to implement (code size and memory requirements) on very small devices
> so I am not convinced we should remove simpler methods... IMHO the
> Timer-based method with proper parameters (i.e., one ICMP per tick
> with a 50Hz clock) should be kept. Note that very small devices are
> not router in general (and never core routers, cf traceroute concerns).

I have to disagree here.  Even if a very small device was not a
router, it would have to respond to traceroutes etc., even though with
lower probability that multiple ones would be happening
simultaneously.  But still, if e.g. a "dumb" host is connected to a
network, and someone close by (e.g. 3-4 hops) sends a traceroute, the 
packets could be sent e.g. 1 ms apart.  Any timer-based mechanism is 
inappropriate, unless it has some kind of "burst allowance", which was 
what Robert Elz also argued for -- but that's token-based filter just 
with different words.

So, I'd say, keep only token-based filter as an example, but if it
seems important one could explain, e.g. in an appendix, why
timer/bandwidth -based mechanisms aren't sufficient on their own.  In
any case, I believe it's important to document that being able to send
the packets in burst is an important characteristic of the filter.

> PS: this topics seems more a v6ops one, doesn't it?

The operational requirements (traceroute, etc.), yes, but this is 
being revised at this WG so it should probably be OK..

-- 
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 IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to