Pekka,
You are side-stepping my question and twisting it into a matter of what is currently done vs. what is best.
What is our goal here: to get IPv6 deployed in the right way, or to preserve the "legacy" deployed IPv6 base?
Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Fred Templin wrote:
In the case of logical (pt-to-pt) interfaces, actual per-source traffic measurements may be readily available. In such cases, why would an implementation use an aggregate estimator when it can easily compute actual per-source values for rate limiting??
I vote for the "SHOULD" option for per-interface rate limiting
when per-source traffic measurements are available.
Are there any implementations doing this or interface-specific limiting? None that I know of, but please enlighten us if so. I don't think having such in a draft standard is acceptable.
On the other hand, node-based token bucket limiters are commonplace, and work without any perceived problems AFAICS even behind slow/fast interfaces, behind tunnels, etc. -- why do we need to say more than that?
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
