On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Bob Hinden wrote: > Suresh, > > >coz data from the client may be going thru a different device Y, which is > >being blocked by the fw on that device. fw Y doesn't have the hole > >to let the traffic go through. > > This won't be caused by the load sharing when the data and control are > going to the same destination host. If the data traffic is going to a > different destination host, then it could end up on a different router > because of a more specific route or a redirect. I don't see that load > sharing adds to the complexity.
Agreed. I was just trying to clarify Changming's concern. > > Also, anytime there are multiple routers, the inbound traffic may come back > to the different router than it went out on. The same lack of FW state > problem will occur. This doesn't have anything to do with load sharing. > Quite possible. But my main concern was why do we insist on a MUST for the host when there is no convincing reason to do so. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
