On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:32 AM, RJ Atkinson <rja.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I do NOT support this draft, for one quite simple reason: > > ** The assumption of this draft is that there exists some > IP option type that is NEITHER (a) hop-by-hop nor > (b) end-to-end in nature. > > I have never heard of such an option, but if someone > can provide a concrete example I'm eager to hear about it.
You got the intent all wrong. The intent of draft-ietf-6man-exthdr (formerly known as draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr) is to standardize the IPv6 extension headers that might get proposed in the future so that (i) parsing becomes deterministic and easy AND (ii) we dont end up using any more protocol code points from the limited range that exists. I believe the consensus is now to also include some fields in GIEH that indicate what a processing node must do when it does not recognize the new extension header type thats being carried in GIEH. > By contrast, I know of equipment deployed today (and for > the past few years) from more than 1 router/firewall vendor > that already has silicon that can parse (and, significantly, > parse PAST) IPv6 Destination Options or IPv6 Hop-by-Hop > Options in order to discover the transport-layer protocol > and transport-layer protocol header values (e.g. port numbers). .. > Standardising this proposal has the effect of breaking > this *deployed* capability, which is important to a > significant installed base that use this capability today. Standardising any new protocol number will break this deployed box. How will this box be able to parse a new extension header that is introduced when it does not understand this. > We do not want to encourage the creation of ANY IPv6 option > that is NEITHER a Destination Option NOR a Hop-by-Hop option > and consequently are NOT carried inside either of those headers. The draft does not do that. I dont know which version you have been reading. You should read draft-ietf-6man-exthdr and draft-bhatia-6man-update-ipv6-ext-hdr to get an idea of the problem that this draft is attempting to solve. Kam -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
