"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
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
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,
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
x27;ll add in the reference for [LD-SHRE], thanks.
Hesham
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:57 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RFC2461(bis), section 6.3.6
I
I would like to see
something a bit more inclusive in (RFC2461(bis),
section 6.3.6)
for default router
selection when not all routers on the
link are
equivalent, e.g., when a wireless host sees routers
with
varying link
quality. Suggestion is to simply change:
INCOMPLETE state, or
11 matches
Mail list logo