Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Fred Templin wrote:> > 10Kbps seems the best value for LCD, given commonly-deployed> > links that will see continued use into the future (see BCP> > documents produced by the PILC working group). > > .. that is, restricting mechanisms
Hi,
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Fred Templin wrote:
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> > Designing for this kind of "vastly different capacities in
> > each direction" just don't seem to be worth considering here.
>
> I have to disagree; I believe there is a clear need to design
> for diverse link bandwidths to
Mukesh,
I agree with Pekka here. The text you suggested does look like
a little too much overconcerned.
The text that Pekka suggested, sounds agreeable to me.
I think talking about Rate Limiting a little bit and making some
suggestions to the implementor should be enough. There are too
many varia
> Fred Templin
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:37 AM
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Proposal for rate limiting parameters
>
>
>
> Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> > Designing for this kind of "vastly different capacities in
&
Pekka Savola wrote:
> Designing for this kind of "vastly different capacities in
> each direction" just don't seem to be worth considering here.
I have to disagree; I believe there is a clear need to design
for diverse link bandwidths to support near-term deployments
and to foster future innovatio
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Fred Templin wrote:
>Nodes MUST NOT configure limit values that would permit
>sustained error rates high enough to monopolize a 10Kbps link
>over any interface attached to the global Internet - either directly,
>or through a gateway that does not implement rate
Hello,
Based on the concensus that appears to be emerging from the
"ICMPv6 Rate Limiting Methods: Revised Text" thread, it
seems to me (please correct me if I am wrong) that there is
no real compelling reason to make any changes to the existing
text of section 2.4 (f) found in the current documen
