Hi Steve, > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Steven Blake > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:21 AM > To: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt > > On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 09:20 -0500, Thomas Narten wrote: > > > This is at best poorly phrased. :-) > > > > If the firewall will just dig one layer deeper and then discard > > anyway, what is the point? > > +1 > > I still don't understand what this draft solves that couldn't > be solved more easily by just encoding future header > extensions as either Destination options or Hop-by-Hop > options? Both of these are easy to parse and have well > defined rules for how to handle unknown options.
One of the drivers of the draft was that firewall vendors wanted to differentiate between unknown extension headers and unknown transport protocols and possibly treat them in a different way. E.g. Section 3.2.2 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-16 specifies one such need. Thanks Suresh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
