Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9

> 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@isc.org
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf