Subject: IPv6 Work Group Last Call for "IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing"

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 06:53:15 -0400

This starts an IPv6 WG Last Call for advancing the following draft as
a Proposed Standard

	Title		: IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing
	Author(s)	: R. Hinden, D. Thaler
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipv6-host-load-sharing-02.txt
	Pages		: 6
	Date		: 2004-5-5

This is a two week Last Call that will end on Friday May 21st, 2004.
Substantive comments should be directed to the mailing list.  Editorial
comments can be sent to the authors.

Regards,
Brian & Bob
IPv6 WG co-chairs

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 15:37:24 +0900 (JST)

i have problem understanding the intent of first paragraph of section 2.

>When a host chooses from multiple equivalent routers, it SHOULD
>support choosing using some method which distributes load for
>different destinations among the equivalent routers rather than
>always choosing the same router (e.g., the first in the list).
>Furthermore, a host that does attempt to distribute load among
>routers SHOULD use a hash-based scheme, such as those described in
>[MULTIPATH], which takes the destination IP address into account.

	"SHOULD" on the first line seems way too strong to me, if this text
	is targetted to random hosts around.  the subject of the sentence is
	not restricted ("a host"), so it seems to me that it includes
	memory/cpu/whatever-restricted hosts too.

	i would like to suggest either of the following:
	- change SHOULD to MAY
	- clearly state that this text/document applies only for hosts that
	  intentionally support router load balancing/sharing

itojun

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:20:39 +0100

I agree.  This point has been made in previous discussions of the draft...

Tim

---

From: Tim Hartrick <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 May 2004 10:45:53 -0700

> I agree.  This point has been made in previous discussions of the draft...

I agree as well.  There are environments where load balancing is 
desirable and environments where is is not desirable.  MAY is the right
word for this circumstance.

tim