On 2011-01-16 11:59, Hing-Kam (Kam) Lam wrote:
>> But it is a very open question whether any middlebox will bother to
>> do this.
>>
>>> So the one thing this proposal will *not* do is allow new extension headers
>>> to cross the Internet transparently. All it might do is cause the firewalls
>>> to
>
> But it is a very open question whether any middlebox will bother to
> do this.
>
>> So the one thing this proposal will *not* do is allow new extension headers
>> to cross the Internet transparently. All it might do is cause the firewalls
>> to dig one layer deeper before discarding the packet.
> If we take the view that a firewall will block anything it does not know,
> without question or limit, then
> 1) We have no way to extend our basic protocols that will pass through
> firewalls (we have to tunnel / encapsulate)
I agree.
> 2) you are correct that this document does not help.
Dis
Fernando,
>>
>> That is, help middleboxes to violate e2e transparency and, furthermore,
>> allow unknown headers to cross those middleboxes.
>
> I don't think this I-D will make a difference.
>
> From the POV of a firewall, unless it really wants a packet to
> pass-through, it will block it.
>
> S
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
>
> Le 5 janv. 2011 à 21:15, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
>> On 2011-01-06 02:15, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>> ...
>>> Prohibiting new IPv6 Extension Headers outright,
>>> ...
>> My reaction is that this is going too far,
>
> +1
I agree with this. I don
