Nalini, > > Once bugs are fixed, then we need to consider carefully what BCP around EHs > should be done, taking into account various common topologies as well as > devices such as proxies and load balancers. I mention those in particular as > what we have found points to those devices in particular as posing problems > rather than transit networks.
I look at load balancers as an extension of the application (or network function). Unless the application had a particular use for a extension header I would not implement it. And that’s with an implementors hat on. Writing custom load-balancers for network services. What would you even do with EHs through a load balancer? Provide ALGs for EHs containing addresses inside of them? It would have to be on a case by case basis. > Of course, our testing to date is absolute lack of transmission rather than > lack of transmission based on EH length or type. We felt that was the > logical first step. O. _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
