On 2007-08-30 08:14, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
On Aug 29, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-08-30 02:08, Thomas Narten wrote:
Can we please _first_ identify a user/customer for a proposed RH,
I agree. A use case draft should be the first step.
I'm not sure it matters since:
Incidentally, RFC 2460 is clear that unknown headers should cause the
packet to be dropped, so the transition strategy is tricky in any case.
Water under the bridge and all that, but I'm curious: what was the
rationale for this? It would seem to imply it is impossible to do
incremental deployment of new headers, and thus essentially freezes
routing header development for the lifetime of IPv6.
Am I misunderstanding?
I just looked this up in 2460 myself, and I'm jet lagged so I may
be confused, but indeed this seems to make it very hard to deploy any
new header except as a fork-lift upgrade among consenting systems.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
