Hi, Brian, On 08/14/2013 04:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> * Section 2.1: >>>>> Any forwarding node along an IPv6 packet's path, which forwards the >>>>> packet for any reason, SHOULD do so regardless of any extension >>>>> headers that are present, as required by RFC 2460. >>>> I find this particular requirement a bit troublesome. Truth is that many >>>> devices violate this requirement, and will always will. >>> Yes, but the IPv6 design really does require this. >> >> That's my point: is that a sensible requirement? For instance, for the >> time being (Flow Label not used), there's no other way to identify flows >> than to break this reuirement. > > Which is indeed why I worked hard to get RFC 6437 written. But changing > this aspect of IPv6 design would be a *really* big discussion.
I'm fully in favor of RFC6437. My point is that host implementations still not use or o weird stuff with the Flow Label -- hence it's not dependable for anything. This means that in the short of near term there's no better option than following the IPv6 header chain (not that I like it but... that doesn't change the facts). >>> Maybe we should >>> change the IANA registry to include the experimental ones, but with >>> a special tag? (Extension headers 253 and 254 are also tricky, because >>> they are experimental values defined by a standards track RFC. Go figure!) >> >> I think we might be able to do both "1)" and "2)" above by adding a tag >> along the lines of "not expected in the public Internet"? (with the >> implication that "it's okay to filter"). > > Something like that, yes. We'll try some words in the next version. Great. Thanks! Cheers, -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
