Hi Brian/Alex,
On 10-04-26 05:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
Whether it is an extension header currently defined or an upper-layer
protocol (current or future), this format does not apply. It is a
generic mechanism that future extension headers could voluntarily use to
become middlebox friendly and to save protocol numbers.
Thanks
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
