Hi, Le 28 sept. 2010 à 16:52, Hing-Kam (Kam) Lam a écrit :
> ... > My concern with the current format is that it does not help in incrementally > introducing new v6 extension headers. I would like to add the following to > the list of problems that GIEH currently solves: > > *) Some Hdr Options that indicates what a processing node MUST do when it > does not recognize the extension header its trying to process > (drop/pass/etc). We cannot necessarily assume that it will always be the end > node that's trying to process an extension header. You could also have some > intermediate node processing extension headers > and what if it does not understand them? As usual, ignoring is in my understanding sufficient. > It (or the end node) could either ignore this (indicated in the Hdr Option) (not necessary to indicate it in an option) > or it could raise hell and drop the packet (again indicated in the Hdr > Options). Practical examples showing that would be important to drop the packet rather than ignoring it would, IMHO, be necessary before considering to delay approval of the current draft. Regards, RD > > Thanks, Manav > > > > > Thanks > > Suresh > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
