Erik,My notes were more definite on that point, and I recall the discussion we had, and I thought we erred on the side of extreme caution / conservatism in terms of explicit enumeration of locator sets within control messages rather than assuming that the other end had a synchronized ordered set of locators that of course agreed with the local set.
But if you are confident that this locator set synchronization is maintained within the control message exchange, then this design decision can be dropped and locators can be referred to by their index value within a synchronized ordering of the locator set.
regards, Geoff At 02:54 PM 20/10/2005, Erik Nordmark wrote:
Geoff Huston wrote:8. Do not use locator ordering and index references in SHIM6 control messages in the initial base specI'm not sure we really decided that at the Interim meeting. In the current proto draft the locator preferences are expressed by assuming that the locator list is ordered so that the relative position can be used in the locator preferences without having to include all the locators themselves in order to express the preferences.Jari did express that he didn't think this was necessary for the reachability part, but I haven't checked how that work is evolving yet.So I think it is premature to make the above decision. Erik