Ole, I think the list of headers in -ext-transmit is complete, if you include HIP. However, you last question illustrates the Catch-22 problem - the ones in use today are the ones that manage to get through firewalls, sometimes, today. We don't *know* which ones would be in use if the network was transparent to them.
Your other questions are interesting ones, but I am also interested in seeing a detailed analysis of exactly what is hard for modern technology in dealing with what is currently standardised. All I hear is "our current design doesn't do this." That isn't helpful. Regards Brian On 07/06/2013 21:06, Ole Troan wrote: > [absolutely no chair hat] > >> Does size matter? >> >> Or is the complexity of the ASIC implementation of a header chain parser >> more heavily influenced by the fact that the header chain is defined as >> a linked list of type-length-value items that can be built up in any >> number of valid combinations, and so has to be traversed and interpreted >> at every individual link? >> >> What if the most common individual TLV option tokens were standardized >> further? >> >> And the transmission order fixed? >> >> What if the most common individual extension headers were standardized >> further? >> >> And the transmission order fixed? >> >> Would this help make hardware parsing possible/economic? > > since it's Friday... and thinking aloud, what extension headers are in actual > use today? > what would be the consequence of relegating them to networks using them only > among consenting adults? > > IPv6-Opts: > ----------------- > Link specific: Jumbo Payload > Consenting Adults: RPL Option, CALIPSO, Line-Identification Option, MPL Option > Experimental: Quick-Start, SMF_DPD, ILNP Nonce, IP_DFF > Not implemented: Tunnel Encapsulation Limit > Hop-by-Hop option: Router Alert. DOS vector > Home Address - could use tunneling. > > IPv6-Route: > ------------------- > There are two source route types, one used by mobile IP (that could use > tunnelling), > and one used by RPL, which could be supported in a RPL network. > > IPv6-Frag: > --------------- > It would be an interesting analysis to see what application layer protocols > must change if > we were to remove fragmentation from the Internet layer. > > of course you have AH, ESP, various GRE, IP in IP stuff as well. > > cheers, > Ole > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
