Le 26 avr. 2010 à 22:52, Stig Venaas a écrit : > Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote: >> I support this effort as I think it will "future proof" extension >> headers as far as stateful firewalls are concerned - but what I'm >> interested in is finding out how much demand for new extension headers >> there is out there - and what those new extension headers would be. > > I can agree that it's good to check demand,
No urgency IMHO. > but I think it is good to > do the "future proofing" anyway. Urgent. > Things can then be implemented today > and work correctly (as in ignoring unknown headers and still finding > the transport) if new headers are introduced later. Yes. > An alternative approach could perhaps be to set aside a small range of > protocol values for future extension headers? Not as good, by far. So, I hope we can quickly endorse draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr, and satisfy the identified need once and for all. Regards, RD -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
