On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > > The reality is that the Internet ecosystem has a wide variety of > devices now, and many don't cleanly fit into either category. Even > routers are hosts, when they act as the sender or originator of > traffic. > > Even with routers, this thread talks about edge routers (those on > networks where hosts connect) and SP internal links (which are mostly > or always p2p). Clearly, we could could think of functionality > critical for one type of device but irrelevant (or maybe worse) for > the other. > > I don't think we are in a position with the node requirements document > to try and slice those kinds of hairs. We'll never get anywhere... > > FWIW, I'm in favor of MUST implement, since the idea of a generic > edge router not implementing redirects seems like something we should > not encourage. Also, I'm not convinced yet that the cost of > implementing redirects is particularly a problem in the general case, > which is what this document is all about.
This is where we differ. I do not believe that the requirement document should make blanket statements that cover all routers when the benefits apply to only a portion of the cases. We can debate how much this portion represent, but the reality is that there is a significant cost to implement this on some hardware and it is known that those card will not be in a situation where redirect will ever make sense. This, to me, fits the very definition of SHOULD. You really should do this (implement redirect) unless you have a really good reason not to. - Alain. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
