RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt

Hi Fernando, Please see response inline. > -Original Message- > From: Fernando Gont > [mailto:fernando.gont.netbook@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Fernando Gont > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 4:43 PM > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: Thomas Narten; ipv6@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan > Subject:

RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt

Hi Brian, Please see response inline. > -Original Message- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 4:25 PM > To: Thomas Narten > Cc: Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt > > > 2)

RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt

Hi Thomas, Please see responses inline. > -Original Message- > From: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 3:40 PM > To: Suresh Krishnan > Cc: Tony Li; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt > > FWIW, I'm sympathetic t

Re: addrsel: privacy addresses within/out of a site

On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:21:41 +0200 (EET) Pekka Savola wrote: > On Mon, 3 Jan 2011, Mark Smith wrote: > >> "do not use privacy addresses when communicating inside the site [a set of > >> designated destination prefixes], use it by default otherwise" > >> > > > > I'd be curious what the benefits are

Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt

Earlier, Remi Depres wrote: > 1. let's assume a new routing extension is found useful. >Without a skippable extension format, it won't ever be deployable: > - All FWs will have no option but rejecting all packets having it. In reality, such an extension would use the existing IPv6 Routin

Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt

Le 4 janv. 2011 à 16:20, Steven Blake a écrit : > On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 09:20 -0500, Thomas Narten wrote: >> >> If the firewall will just dig one layer deeper and then discard >> anyway, what is the point? > > +1 > > I still don't understand what this draft solves that couldn't be solved > mor

Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt

Then what about if we forget firewalls for the moment? A lot of routers look for the TCP/UDP Port numbers for LAG/ECMP computation. Many of them can cope with having a destination options extension, and therefore that is clearly the better way to handle such information. And anything we do shou

Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt

Hi, Thomas, On 04/01/2011 11:29 a.m., Thomas Narten wrote: >> From the POV of a firewall, unless it really wants a packet to >> pass-through, it will block it. > > I think this is the crux of the problem. firewalls, by default, > discard stuff. They don't like the idea of allowing unknown or > "u

Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt

On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 09:20 -0500, Thomas Narten wrote: > This is at best poorly phrased. :-) > > If the firewall will just dig one layer deeper and then discard > anyway, what is the point? +1 I still don't understand what this draft solves that couldn't be solved more easily by just encoding

Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt

All, I have very strong sympathy with the thoughts expressed by Thomas Narten in this note, especially: (A) the root question (not yet clearly answered, although it has been asked more than once) of what problem this

Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt

Fernando Gont writes: > On 03/01/2011 06:25 p.m., Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > The basic motivation for the present draft is clear: > > > >>However, > >>some intermediate nodes such as firewalls, may need to look at the > >>transport layer header fields in order to make a decision t

Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-01.txt

Brian E Carpenter writes: > > 2) The routing header is essentially deprecated, and we probably won't > > define any more. > The proposal for RH4, i.e. draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header, > is active. Oh, right. But I view that as (essentially) an L2 usage. It will be used within one RPL domain,

Re: Need your input on draft-ietf-6man-exthdr

Le 3 janv. 2011 à 14:20, Suresh Krishnan a écrit : > Hi Folks, > As some recent mails indicated there does not seem to be consensus on > some parts of this draft. I would like to see what the wg feels (now) > before proceeding any further with this draft. > > The draft contains three independe