valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> Beyond that, if there are multiple routers, having a default
>> router and relying
> Yes yes we know, and we've understood this for a quarter century or so. My
> disagreement is that even though 99.8% of machines *don't* have multiple
> routers, you seem to be pedantically insisting that some sort of IGP is
> mandatory for *all* end hosts, even though only 0.2% or so will actually see
> any benefit at all..
Not. Though hosts should implement some IGPs, the default can
be to just depend on default routers supplied from DHCP.
A better default could be that IGP will be automatically invoked
if DHCP does not supply a default router.
If there are multiple IGPs are implemented, snooping IGPs'
advertisement to know which is the locally available IGP may
also be a good idea.
My point w.r.t. multiple next hop routers is that RA supplied
information is not good enough, which means DHCP is no
worse than RA even if there are multiple next hop routers.
Masataka Ohta
