It seems likely to me that an efficient host implementation can meet the
existing requirement relative to sourcing a packet with such options
without noticeable load. So there does not seem any point in relaxing
the requirement.
And technically, if the host puts ina strict source route, and the first
hop is not directly reachable, it really does need to drop it. So
keeping the existing text has a minor benefit.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/4/2012 11:48 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
For your comment.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tsou-6man-hbh-header-update/
-----Original Message-----
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 8:45 PM
To: Tina TSOU
Cc: Sreenatha setty b
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-6man-hbh-header-update-
00.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-tsou-6man-hbh-header-update-00.txt has been
successfully submitted by Tina Tsou and posted to the IETF repository.
Filename: draft-tsou-6man-hbh-header-update
Revision: 00
Title: Update to the processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options extension
header
Creation date: 2012-03-04
WG ID: Individual Submission
Number of pages: 5
Abstract:
The Hop-by-Hop Options header is used to convey optional information
that must be examined by every node along a packet's delivery path.
This document updates RFC2460, removing the requirement that source
nodes must process the Hop-by-Hop extension header, on the basis that
it imposes a performance impact with no advantages.
The IETF Secretariat
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
