Hi Thomas, Thanks a lot for your very kind comments.
> Sorry to interrupt, but I'd suggest that working on a new RH design is > mostly a waste of time at this point. I understand your point completely. It sounds very logical to have a use case before going in for a draft, which otherwise may not even be required. However it seems you have probably not followed mails I have sending carefully enough. I have raised this issue on the list way back and got some feed back too. I have found based on feedback the main uses of the RH header to be Explicit Traffic Engineering as well as for OAM purposes (something the IETF has underplayed for a long time). There is a paper by Geoff Huston (I am not totally sure it was him), that gives some use cases for operators. I am ok, adding a section at the beginning of the draft for the same. > One can argue that the whole RH0 debacle results from designing > functionality for which there was no clear customer/use. Time and time > again, this sort of protocol design results in (at best) wasted > effort. Having been the one to have identified the amplification attacks around a couple of years ago, I realize the problems and related security issues. However I am not sure of how you say there are no use cases. I got the information asking that very question on the list. It would be great if you can let me know what you base your assumptions on? Thanks, Vishwas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
