FWIW, I largely agree with Bob. The biggest issue I see with this is that this document requires code changes on routers in anticipation of a some vague, future possible new extension type.
I strongly suspect that any such RFC will be largely ignored by vendors and thus won't be implemented. And if it is not implemented _now_, in the future, when that new extension is finally defined, it will be too late to matter. This sort of thing would have made more sense early on as part of the base IPv6 protocol RFC. Today, there is no compelling reason for anyone to implement this. PS, I'd also like to see some evidence that there exist potential future header extensions that routers/firewalls will need to process that can't be dealt with via (say) a hop-by-hop option or routing header. Just saying it's theoretically possible doesn't make it compelling. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
