Hi John,
On 11-03-15 09:25 AM, John Leslie wrote:
Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krish...@ericsson.com> wrote:
On 11-03-14 06:55 PM, John Leslie wrote:
I notice that Section 4 calls for TLV:
]
] 4. Proposed IPv6 Extension Header format
]
] This document proposes that all IPv6 extension headers be encoded in
] a consistent TLV format so that it is possible for nodes to skip over
] unknown extension headers and continue to further process the header
] chain.
But I don't see the equivalent of Section 4.2 of RFC 2460, specifying
the TLV format.
The T is the "Next Header", the L is the "Hdr Ext Len" and V is the
"Header Specific Data" as specified in the figure in Section 4 of the
draft.
Well, of course "Next Header" _isn't_ the Type of this option (rather
it's the Type of the next option).
And the "Hdr Ext Len" isn't a particularly intuitive coding of Length
either...
Yep. You are right on both counts, but I am not sure how we can change
this. We cannot chain the headers without the T being in the *previous*
header. I think the best we can do is to refrain from calling this TLV
like you said.
IMHO, referring to this format as "TLV" is unnecessarily confusing.
OK.
Also IMHO, if we do define another Extension Header, it's likely we'll
want to make it expandable using the TLV format we _are_ familiar with.
Do you mean inside the Header Specific data? If so, yes, that makes
perfect sense.
Thanks
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
