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