Gawd, I love these sorts of discussions. Remind me. How many HBH options has the IETF approved in the last ten years?
How many proposed HBH options are in the pipeline for approval? Could we please skip this silly discussion until such a time as someone actually proposes a HBH option that makes sense, and for which alternate approaches to solving the problem (that don't use HBH) are worse? And when we have such a compelling proposal, discuss the pros/cons of whether it can be deployed, whether routers will actually implement it, etc.? These entirely theoretical discussions are mostly a complete waste of time. And to be clear, I suspect we will not be approving any HBH options any time soon. We know they are generally a bad idea. It is unlikely that the reasons that HBH are a last resort approach will change anytime soon. But can we please just leave things alone as they are now? The possibility that a HBH may be defined in the future is not something that is causing us problems today and needs fixing. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
