On Apr 20, 2010, at 06:52, Rémi Després wrote: > > Waiting for this new extension header to be found useful would be IMHO a > DESIGN MISTAKE: if and when such an extension is found useful, it will be too > late because ALL codes that look for ports will need to be upgraded before > deployment of the new extension.
I think this argues that we should position I-D.krishnan-ipv6-exthdr as an update to RFC 3692 and instruct IANA to reserve two additional numbers for experimental IPv6 extension headers, which we then require to be formatted accordingly, and which we also permit nodes to silently ignore if they do not support processing them. The general problem of distinguishing extension headers from upper-layer transports by a programmatic method is, I suspect, not worth the trouble that would surely be involved in solving it. -- james woodyatt <j...@apple.com> member of technical staff, communications engineering -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
