> >> Serious disconnect between map and reality here, Mark. > > > > If you think that, then I don't think you've read my emails > > properly. > > ... or there is a serious disconnect between your reality and my reality. > > By saying that L2 devices doing L3 inspection is a layer violation and > isn't acceptable, you've dismissed the way millions of people are > connected to the internet as... er, I don't know. Not acceptable and > wrong.
Maybe we're disagreeing on the meaning of the word "acceptable". I think most of us can agree that L2 devices doing L3 inspection is a layer violation. What a lot of us can *not* agree to is simply dismissing such a feature *just because it is a layer violation*. IPv6 in general is purely an added cost for the providers so far - no fresh revenue expected in the near future. That means we cannot do large scale changes of our current architecture. As a consequenc of this, we need largely the same functionality available for IPv6 as we have for IPv4 - *even if that fucntionality happens to be a layer violation*. We need IPv6 to be "business as usual" as much as possible. A feature like L2 devices doing L3 inspection is, as far as I can see, a mostly software thing: Hardware filter to intercept the traffic and route it to the CPU, probably hardware rate limiting, software doing the actual inspection. Thus is should be possible to a similar thing for IPv6. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
