On 2010-04-27 11:21, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Brian/Alex,
>
> On 10-04-26 05:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 2010-04-27 03:02, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>> Le 26/04/2010 14:17, Brian Haberman a écrit :
All,
The 6MAN chairs would like feedback from the working group on adopting
On Apr 26, 2010, at 06:17 MDT, Brian Haberman wrote:
> All,
> The 6MAN chairs would like feedback from the working group on adopting
> draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr as a WG item. Please send your comments/opinions
> to the mailing list (or the chairs) by May 7, 2010.
I support this draft being
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Suresh
Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Seiichi,
>
> On 10-04-26 01:27 AM, Seiichi Kawamura wrote:
>> Do you think the following would work?
>> I merged "4.2.2. Handling One 16 bit 0 Field" with your text
>>
>> 4.2.1. When to use "::"
>>
>>If the
Hi Suresh,
If you read the mail below (which I sent earlier in the day) this is
what I had said too. Just reserving values will not do, we need to
also define the structure otherwise it will not work.
> i.e. An unknown extension header will have a known "Next Header" value but
> an unknown "Speci
Hi Vishwas,
On 10-04-26 05:13 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
Hi Stig,
I can agree that it's good to check demand, but I think it is good to
do the "future proofing" anyway. Things can then be implemented today
and work correctly (as in ignoring unknown headers and still finding
the transport) if ne
Hi Brian/Alex,
On 10-04-26 05:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2010-04-27 03:02, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 26/04/2010 14:17, Brian Haberman a écrit :
All,
The 6MAN chairs would like feedback from the working group on adopting
draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr as a WG item. Please send your
comme
On 2010-04-27 03:02, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Le 26/04/2010 14:17, Brian Haberman a écrit :
>> All,
>> The 6MAN chairs would like feedback from the working group on adopting
>> draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr as a WG item. Please send your
>> comments/opinions to the mailing list (or the chairs) by M
Hi Stig,
> I can agree that it's good to check demand, but I think it is good to
> do the "future proofing" anyway. Things can then be implemented today
> and work correctly (as in ignoring unknown headers and still finding
> the transport) if new headers are introduced later.
>
> An alternative a
Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
I support this effort as I think it will "future proof" extension
headers as far as stateful firewalls are concerned - but what I'm
interested in is finding out how much demand for new extension headers
there is out there - and what those new extension headers would be
Le 26/04/2010 19:57, Suresh Krishnan a écrit :
Hi Alex,
On 10-04-26 11:02 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 26/04/2010 14:17, Brian Haberman a écrit :
All, The 6MAN chairs would like feedback from the working group
on adopting draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr as a WG item. Please send
your comments/
Hi Jeremy,
On 10-04-26 02:07 PM, Duncan, Jeremy wrote:
Pretty sure all extension headers are considered payload of the IPv6 header.
Check out RFC 2460. It says ESP and AH are there..
As you stated above RFC2460 does talk about the AH and ESP, but the AH
spec itself contains the following t
Hi Suresh,
> i.e. An unknown extension header will have a known "Next Header" value but
> an unknown "Specific Type" inside the GIEH and an unknown upper layer
> protocol will have an unknown "Next Header" value.
This need not be the case. What if two new headers are defined. Also
if it is a payl
Hi Vishwas,
The idea is that all new IPv6 extension headers will use the same
Next Header value (allocated in this draft). Anything else will be a
payload/upper layer protocol.
i.e. An unknown extension header will have a known "Next Header" value
but an unknown "Specific Type" inside the G
Hi Suresh,
This brings the interesting issue, how do I know if the unknown inner
header is payload vs Extension header?
Thanks,
Vishwas
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Suresh Krishnan
wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On 10-04-26 11:02 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>
>> Le 26/04/2010 14:17, Brian Haberm
Hi Alex,
On 10-04-26 11:02 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 26/04/2010 14:17, Brian Haberman a écrit :
All,
The 6MAN chairs would like feedback from the working group on adopting
draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr as a WG item. Please send your
comments/opinions to the mailing list (or the chairs) by M
I support this effort as I think it will "future proof" extension
headers as far as stateful firewalls are concerned - but what I'm
interested in is finding out how much demand for new extension headers
there is out there - and what those new extension headers would be.
- Wes
-Original Messag
Hi Seiichi,
On 10-04-26 01:27 AM, Seiichi Kawamura wrote:
Do you think the following would work?
I merged "4.2.2. Handling One 16 bit 0 Field" with your text
4.2.1. When to use "::"
If the address contains at least two consecutive 16-bit 0 fields, "::"
MUST be used to compress consecuti
Le 26/04/2010 14:17, Brian Haberman a écrit :
All,
The 6MAN chairs would like feedback from the working group on adopting
draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr as a WG item. Please send your
comments/opinions to the mailing list (or the chairs) by May 7, 2010.
Comments...
3. Backward Compatibility
T
Hi,
I support the effort.
Thanks,
Vishwas
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Brian Haberman
wrote:
> All,
> The 6MAN chairs would like feedback from the working group on adopting
> draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr as a WG item. Please send your comments/opinions
> to the mailing list (or the chair
All,
The 6MAN chairs would like feedback from the working group on
adopting draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr as a WG item. Please send your
comments/opinions to the mailing list (or the chairs) by May 7, 2010.
Regards,
Brian & Bob
---
20 matches
Mail list logo
