[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Design decisions made at the interim SHIM6 WG meeting
My notes were more definite on that point, and I recall the discussion we
had, and I thought we erred on the side of extreme caution / conservatism
in terms of explicit enumeration of locator sets within control messages
rather than assuming that the other end had a synchronized ordered set of
locators that of course agreed with the local set.
But if you are confident that this locator set synchronization is
maintained within the control message exchange, then this design decision
can be dropped and locators can be referred to by their index value within
a synchronized ordering of the locator set.
At 02:54 PM 20/10/2005, Erik Nordmark wrote:
Geoff Huston wrote:
8. Do not use locator ordering and index references in SHIM6 control
messages in the initial base spec
I'm not sure we really decided that at the Interim meeting. In the current
proto draft the locator preferences are expressed by assuming that the
locator list is ordered so that the relative position can be used in the
locator preferences without having to include all the locators themselves
in order to express the preferences.
Jari did express that he didn't think this was necessary for the
reachability part, but I haven't checked how that work is evolving yet.
So I think it is premature to make the above decision.