ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9

2008-06-02 00:17:23

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.)

        Errata is a lot faster that getting out a new RFC and will provide
        a place that can be referred to in the meantime. 

        This rule is clearly wrong.

        If I have a 192/24 address what make another 192/8 address
        better than say 130.155/16 address?  Absolutely nothing.
        Rule 9 says that all 192/24 address are better than anything
        else if you have a 192/24 address.

        I don't think there is any real dispute that the rule is bogus.
        There is clear evidence that it does actual harm.

        Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>