Hi Hagen, This idea was discussed earlier in the 6man wg and was not accepted for the following reasons.
a) The protocol number space is very precious. We do not want to allocate any numbers out of this for extension headers that may never materialize. b) Almost anything that can be done using extension headers can probably be done using destination options without breaking backward compatibility. Thanks Suresh On 11-09-29 10:32 AM, Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote: > > Hello, > > draft-pfeifer-6man-exthdr-res-01 proposes an idea to reserve a small area > of protocol numbers in advance. IPv6 extension headers (or protocols) which > use one of these numbers are forced to structure the extension header to be > formatted as outlined in pre-draft-ietf-6man [1]. This allows operating > systems to code these numbers in advance in the stack. > > This enables two opportunities > > 1) future standardized extension headers can be deployed without being > dropped by older routers where the extension header isn't known > 2) vendors can test experimental extension headers in their networks > > > Hagen > > > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-04 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
