Manav, On 04/02/2011 03:53 a.m., Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote: > One of the major reasons given for not accepting this was that no new > extension headers need to be *ever* defined in future because you > MUST either use hop-by-hop ext header or the destination options ext > header.
What type of options are you envisioning that would not fit in any of the existing extension headers? -- That was the main argument against the publication of the aforementioned I-D. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
