On May 31, 2013, at 5:46 AM, Ray Hunter <v6...@globis.net> wrote: > I was suggesting looking at using a tag option within an existing header > (the hop by hop header), which theoretically is already processed by all > nodes along the path. So new options rather than a new header.
Right, but the hop-by-hop header doesn't exist unless you add it, and it can't be processed on the fast path. It's useful for networks where there _is_ no fast path (e.g., llns), but not so useful for the applications we're talking about here (e.g., VoIP). > But why are people coming up with these schemes for encoding semantics > in the address prefixes in the first place? That's what I'd like to > understand first and foremost: what lack of functionality is > motivating/forcing these people to adopt such schemes? This is a good question to be asking. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
