Hi Bob, > We would like to get your comments on the following two choices: > > 1) Deprecate RH0 as specified in <draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt>. I support this option.
I think having a new header i.e. RH4, should be added with the below mentioned functionality. I have already got a draft for the same. I will post it today. Thanks, Vishwas > 2) Revising the draft to restrict the usage of RH0. This would > continue to require RH0 to be implemented but would restrict the > functionality of RH0. For example, require nodes to have support for > RH0 turned off by default, limit the number of RH0 headers in a > packet to one, limit the number of addresses in the RH0 to a smaller > number (e.g., 6), and and a requirement that addresses can only be in > the header once. > > Please send your answer this question (including why) to the list or > to the chairs directly. We will review the responses and report the > results to the w.g. early next week. We are not trying to start a > debate, but want to get a new measure of the consensus. > > We note that if there continues to be a consensus for 1), then we > will forward the draft to the ADs for proposed standard. > > Thanks, > Bob Hinden & Brian Haberman > IPv6 w.g. Chairs > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
