Re: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6

2006-04-24 Thread Thomas Narten
"Templin, Fred L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think it is good to have this discussion of link quality > on the list to serve as a permanent (?) record for those > developers who might want to implement a default router > selection strategy based on factors not explicitly called > out in the s

Re: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6

2006-04-21 Thread Bob Hinden
On Apr 20, 2006, at 5:11 PM, ext Thomas Narten wrote: Yes, this is the passage I am concerned with. The point is that (in some environments) not all routers on the link will be equivalent, e.g., some routers may exhibit better QoS than others due to different signal-to-noise ratios, queue lengt

RE: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6

2006-04-21 Thread Templin, Fred L
ED] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:11 PM To: Templin, Fred L Cc: Soliman, Hesham; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6 > Yes, this is the passage I am concerned with. The point is > that (in some environments) not all routers on the link will > be equivalent,

Re: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6

2006-04-20 Thread Thomas Narten
> Yes, this is the passage I am concerned with. The point is > that (in some environments) not all routers on the link will > be equivalent, e.g., some routers may exhibit better QoS than > others due to different signal-to-noise ratios, queue lengths, > etc. > In those cases, hosts may prefer som

RE: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6

2006-04-20 Thread Templin, Fred L
ding which routers are good and which are "suspect". Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Soliman, Hesham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 3:04 PM To: Templin, Fred L; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: RE: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6 > > =&g

RE: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6

2006-04-20 Thread Soliman, Hesham
m [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:37 PM > To: Templin, Fred L; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: RE: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6 > > > > > > Yes, this is the passage I am concerned with. The point is > > that (in some environm

RE: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6

2006-04-20 Thread Templin, Fred L
ssage- From: Soliman, Hesham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:37 PM To: Templin, Fred L; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: RE: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6 > > Yes, this is the passage I am concerned with. The point is > that (in some environments) not all routers on t

RE: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6

2006-04-20 Thread Soliman, Hesham
ge- > From: Soliman, Hesham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 12:51 PM > To: Templin, Fred L; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: RE: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6 > > Fred > > I assume you're referring to this : > >1) Route

RE: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6

2006-04-20 Thread Templin, Fred L
age- From: Soliman, Hesham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 12:51 PM To: Templin, Fred L; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: RE: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6 Fred I assume you're referring to this : 1) Routers that are reachable or probably reachable (i.e., in any

RE: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6

2006-04-20 Thread Soliman, Hesham
Fred I assume you're referring to this : 1) Routers that are reachable or probably reachable (i.e., in any state other than INCOMPLETE) SHOULD be preferred over routers whose reachability is unknown or suspect (i.e., in the INCOMPLETE state, or for which no Neighbor C