Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krish...@ericsson.com> wrote: > On 11-03-15 09:25 AM, John Leslie wrote: >>>> >>>> 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.
That would satisfy me... But, the 2460 section 4.2 TLV also defines four actions when a Type isn't recognized (skip and three cases of discard). exthdr-02 gives us no way of defining skip-vs-discard. I think some mention of this issue would be wise. It appears, at first blush, that you intend for a middlebox to skip over these prospective extension headers, whereas 2460 calls for dropping the packet. I'm not prepared to say what the resolution may be; I just think it deserves some text (even if only to say, "Beware!"). -- John Leslie <j...@jlc.net> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
