Lets be a little careful here:
1) If we say "No Extension Headers for intermediate processing", and "No
Hop By Hop Options", then we are saying that we do not want any
extensions intended to be processed in intermediate routers. While I
personally like that, I want to make really sure that we understand that
is what we are saying.
2) I have been told that many large rotuers have a setting that causes
them to ignore the hop by hop options field. To the degree that is both
true and turned on, then we need to allow for that in our think (both
positive and negative.)
Yours,
Joel
On 2/3/2011 9:57 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Hing-Kam (Kam) Lam<hingka...@gmail.com> wrote:
The below white paper from Cisco asserts that most vendors including
Cisco process Hop-by-Hop extension headers in CPU (slow path). Is this
correct?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/technologies/tk648/tk872/technologies_white_paper0900aecd8054d37d.html
If Yes, then we should not add support for more sub options with HBH header.
yes, see notes from me (in particular) about this from the last 2+
years... no more HBH header options pls... OR understand that these
may/will get dropped (probably the whole packet actually) at some
provider edges.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
