Hi Ron, On 21/08/2013 01:33, Ronald Bonica wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Thanks for your review of all three documents. The following is some gentle > pushback.
... > There is no real solution to the long header problem. The best that we can do > is to put a stake in the ground, saying that implementations should forward > packets with header chains up to X bytes. There is no need to UPDATE RFC > 2460, or to publish a PS document. A BCP is good enough. Architecturally, we have (I think) decided to say that header chains MUST NOT be fragmented (this draft) and SHOULD be forwarded (draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit). I'm still a bit leery about making X bytes a rule rather than a health warning - who knows when someone might come up with a silicon-based solution that doesn't have an X bytes limitation? A carefully worded BCP that makes it clear that X bytes is a current engineering limit rather than an architectural limit seems about right. Keeping the documents separate provides flexibility for the future, too. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
