On 2010-04-27 03:02, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Le 26/04/2010 14:17, Brian Haberman a écrit : >> All, >> The 6MAN chairs would like feedback from the working group on adopting >> draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr as a WG item. Please send your >> comments/opinions to the mailing list (or the chairs) by May 7, 2010. > > Comments... >> 3. Backward Compatibility >> >> >> The scheme proposed in this document is not backward compatible with >> all the currently defined IPv6 extension headers. It only applies to >> newly defined extension headers. Specifically, the following >> extension headers predate this document and do not follow the format >> proposed in this document. >> >> o IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header >> o IPv6 Routing Header >> o IPv6 Fragment Header >> o IPv6 Destination Options Header > > And AH and ESP?
Same question about the shim6 extension header defined in RFC 5533. In one mode it's a payload extension header, but not in the case of a shim6 control message, if I understand correctly. Brian C -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
