Re: [RAM] New LISP draft available ...

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

All OK except:

> > > > That rule doesn't seem viable or enforcable. The client side may
> > > > simply not desire to take orders on how to load share, and that
> > > > could be a business issue (if the client has ISP preferences
> > > > for example). I think it needs to be "Client SHOULD only use the 
> > > > subset list
> > > >       according to the weighting assigned by the server-side."
> > > Well, we do want client spec-compliant implications. I realize there 
> > > are malicious systems out there but you have to document what the 
> > > intended rules are.
> >
> > Maybe I'm disagreeing with that rule then. Is there a *technical* 
> > argument
> > for why the server side must determine the weights?
>
> There is a requirement for site-based ETRs to allow to control the data 
> flow to each of the site's locators. This is precisely controlling 
> ingress traffic flow.

Sorry to harp on but why is that a *technical* requirement?

(To be clear, if it's a *business* requirement I still think it
should be a SHOULD.)

    Brian

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM at iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram