Hi Rémi,
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
The point of our proposed solution is to specify a common set of rules or guidelines for managing the entry of data into the hop by hop option header data field. The hop by hop option can be ignored by routers that do not support it or blocked by edge routers that do not like/recognise it. However by setting in place a standard interface, operators can use this feature to build future in-line network management and monitoring protocols.Le mercredi 4 novembre 2009 18:40:26 Alan Davy, vous avez écrit :We are currently specifying an IPv6 hop by hop option which will be used to carry node related information along a path within a network domain. There has been previous proposals submitted to the IETF within this area, such as IPv6 Route Record [1] and Connection/Link Status Investigation[2]. We are aware of the reasons these proposals have been rejected previously, being mainly related to the problems of the hop by hop option and the operators unwillingness to share private data.Every router and middlebox on the path needs to parse HBH, which causes severe challenge with some hardware and/or software architecture. Hence, I believe many, if not all, network gears vendors hate HBH.With HBH, you can in principle extend IPv6 routing to do really anything. But then you need to upgrade all the routers. And that's simply not going to happen. So basically, HBH is only useful in the mythical "walled garden" networks.
Alan
<<attachment: adavy.vcf>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
