Fernando, If you deprecate HbH then if you need an extension that requires such a behavior then you would need a new header. Routers that don't implement that will skip over it, while the ones that understand that will process it. This is different from bundling everything inside HbH where all routers will have to process this packet in slow path.
Cheers, Manav > -----Original Message----- > From: Fernando Gont > [mailto:fernando.gont.netbook....@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Fernando Gont > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12.39 PM > To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav) > Cc: Joel M. Halpern; Christopher Morrow; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Hop-by-Hop Extension Header processed in Slow Path? > > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
