On Aug 30, 2007, at 3:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dow, Fortunately, Bill Fenner thought things through when drafting RFC 4727 (Experimental Values in Headers): "3.6. IPv6 Routing Header Routing Type This document assigns two values for the Routing Type field in the IPv6 Routing Header, 253 and 254." So, people wanting to work on a new RH type can develop use cases and run experiments using these values, without further IETF action. These values are fine in a 'consenting adults' situation if unmodified nodes implement the RFC 2460 rules correctly. Brian
Thanks, Brian. This is a good point, and I think it raises a few important questions for the group:
- What bounds are placed on the achievable source routing functionality if only consenting nodes participate, and all other nodes simply forward (without processing) or drop? I don't have a clear idea on this yet.
- If a "consenting nodes only" model is adopted, is any arbitrary behavior by those consenting nodes deemed acceptable by the non- consenting nodes? Previous discussions seemed to indicate that at least some folks would answer "no" to this question.
In other words, how is using RH 253 between consenting nodes (allowed to behave arbitrarily) any different than allowing consenting nodes to run RH0, and non-consenting nodes disabling RH0? One difference (cynical hat on) is that opponents of source routing now force proponents to get new functionality implemented and deployed - only to have the same debate a few years from now when it comes time to standardize the functionality.
Do I have this right? R, Dow -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
