On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, RJ Atkinson wrote: > I agree that C.M. Heard's ideas should be explored > in more detail by the IETF.
Not just my suggestion, but other ideas as well: - put UDP source and destination ports in a new IPv6 option that and add it along with a fragment header when fragmenting UDP packets (suggested on-list by Mark Andrews). - generic transport encapsulation within UDP (suggested to me off-list by Mark Smith, based on a draft by Stuart Cheshire et. al.). - SEAL (suggested on-list by Fred Templin) > (I defer to the Powers That Be which list that might > belong to -- TSV WG list might be one option, but > it is not as likely to have IPv6 operators as well > represented as the IPv6 list seems to have.) That's really important -- it doesn't do anyone any good to have a theoretical solution that operators are not willing to deploy. We all need to work together here. Thanks, Mike Heard -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
