On 2010-04-27 11:21, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > 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.
Understood, but I am wondering whether the shim6 extension header needs to be added to the above list of exceptions. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
