Re: Router Requirements Inactivity

[[e-mail]]

> >>    - Precedence & TOS should be respected in the drop policy
> >
> >seems to me that i talked to someone (van ?) who had actually done
> >some research, and who had decided that any exceptions to the drop
> >policy were not worth the overhead to implement (i asked about trying 
> >to avoid dropping packs with the frag bit sent . . .)
> >
> 
> If someone has further info on this I hope they will post it.  I find
> it hard to believe this is true across the board in all operating
> environments, though it's probably true at least some of the time.
> Seems to me that with a fast router driving a slow link, a nontrivial
> drop policy makes sense.

I, too, would like to hear more details on this.  I lifted that part
of the document directly from <draft-ietf-rreq-iprouters-require-01.txt>, 
so I don't know the background discussion.  It made a lot of sense (to
me) the way it stands.  I suspect that there is not significant
operational experience to state one way or the other a correct answer.
However, it would be very good to have relevant pointers to research
work in this area in the document.

--Jamshid