Hi John,
On 11-03-15 04:15 PM, John Leslie wrote:
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.
Right. These behavior flags were added in version -01 of the draft (the
previous version) due to a apparent consensus at the physical wg meeting
but this change has been rolled back in version -02 due to lack of
consensus in the mailing list.
I'm not prepared to say what the resolution may be; I just think
it deserves some text (even if only to say, "Beware!").
Let's see if we can make some progress at the next meeting.
Thanks
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
