> Values of T that are higher than 20-30 might break legitimate > functionality that requires timely delivery of ICMPv6 error > messages (e.g., traceroute), while smaller values might cause > saturation of slow links.
The text definitely looks better than mine. I will use the above text. > I'm also not entirely sure about your cautions regarding "a global > value of F per node"; the text of f.2 says: "limiting the > rate at which > error messages are sent from a particular interface to some fraction > F of the attached link's bandwidth" - it doesn't say anything about > a global value of F for the node. The line "The limit parameters (e.g., T, F, B and N in the above examples) MUST be configurable for the node." implies that F is configured as a global value for the node. What I wanted to point out was that if the admin was allowed to configure the value of F per interface, we will not have the scalability problem that Pekka had pointed out. (we will still have the problem in asymmetric path topology that you described). I would be happy to put any text that will describe the limitations of the bandwidth-based method in a better way ? Regards Mukesh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
