Hi Quentin,
I don't think the fact that this is a "SHOULD" and not a "MUST" mandates that
it has to be handled gracefully by the protocol. There are plenty of situations
where violation of "SHOULDs" result
in degraded or incorrect protocol behavior.
Also, I think that attempt to handle this m
Acee at al,
Many thanks for your response. I do feel though that I should add a bit more of
my reasoning
for why I submitted this erratum.
RFC 5798 in section 8.3.2 (Recommendations Regarding Setting Priority Values)
states:
A priority value of 255 designates a particular router as the "IPvX a
