On 02/06/2013 06:51 PM, Ole Troan wrote: > while we are on the topic, and you made me re-read the document. > > section 4: issues with terminology. call a device that walks the > extension header chain something else than a router. rfc2460 > definition of a router; "extension headers are not examined or > processed by any node along a packet's delivery path". a switch in my > book doesn't look at L3 headers. use "middlebox" or "filtering > router"?
Will do. > section 3: is the main justification for this work to make NAT64s > function better? if so that might be a little short-sighted, by the > time we've updated IPv6 implementations... perhaps use a different > example than NAT64? I could mention something along the lines of "any middlebox that must/wants_to perform stateless processing of packets" > section 5: restricting the header chain seems like an incomplete > solution. doesn't a middlebox need to reassembly fragments anyway, to > deal with mis-ordered fragments? No. Such devices typically pass non-first fragments, and enforce their policy based on the information contained in the first fragment. > with a more idealist hat on: that extension headers are hard to > parse, some consider a feature of IPv6. Others consider "deployability" a more interesting feature -- are we really having this discussion? > a feature that tries to > protect the end to end Internet, That doesn't protect the end-to-end-ness of the Internet, but rather just prevents IPv6 from being deployed -- such "feature" ("overlooked conercase", I'd rather say) will only prevent traffic (that would have otherwise been allowed) from flowing in the network. > i.e. that we can deploy new > transport protocols and extension headers without upgrading all > intermediate boxes. changing the IPv6 protocol for a flawed design > (aka middleboxes), is that wise? That's your take. My take is that packets that have more headers than payload don't make any sense. We put headers to move payloads -- not the other way around. > might as well just deprecate IP > fragmentation. (which I would be in favour of). IMHO, (and all the above said), this document was adopted almost a year ago. If we're going to stop moving documents forward to re-hash one-year-old discussions (as we already did with draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses), it becomes very hard to make any sort of progress. Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------