Hi Bert, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:30 PM >> To: Markku Savela > >>> And, if you hit unknown header, there is *NO WAY* to skip >> over it. You >>> have no idea whether it is an extension header (following >> the standard >>> format), or something totally different. >> And hence this text in the future work section of the draft about >> remaining issues to be resolved. >> >> o Unknown extension headers cannot be differentiated from unknown >> upper layer protocols >> >> We had discussed this in the 6man meeting and there is no >> consensus on >> the way forward. A common extension header format is ONLY ONE STEP in >> the direction of the solution. It is certainly not the >> complete answer >> and there is no claim in the draft that says otherwise. > > I think the wording I quoted previously from RFC 2460 is intended to > keep the receiver of the packet, the one identified in the IP DA, from > skipping over unknown EHs. Which seems like the right thing to do. An > unknown EH at the receiver should generate and ICMP error, I think.
I agree with you on this. > > If this draft wants to bypass that rule: The goal of the draft is not to make any recommendations to either receiving end nodes or intermediate nodes. The goal of the draft is to propose a standard extension header format. That's it. Period. If you found any text in the draft that suggests some action on the nodes, I can remove it (Please point it out to me). It was not my intention to specify any skip/drop behavior on the nodes. Thanks Suresh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
