On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
This rule should not exist for IPv4 or IPv6. Longest match
does not make a good sorting critera for destination address
selection. In fact it has the opposite effect by concentrating
traffic on particular address rather than spreading load.
I received a request today asking us to break up DNS RRsets
as a workaround to the rule. Can we please get a errata
entry for RFC 3484 stating that this rule needs to be ignored.
I doubt that. Errata seems like a wrong place to revisit WG decisions.
(I take no stance on the issue itself.)
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf