On Jan 3, 2011, at 5:20 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> a) Specifying a uniform format for all future IPv6 extension headers to
> make them easier to parse/process.
Support
> b) Requesting a single IP protocol number codepoint for all future
> extension headers and multiplexing them using a Spec
On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:32 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> We will come back with a proposal to resolve the issues that you, Ran and
> Fernando raised.
Thank you, we look forward to it.
Tony
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Hi Suresh,
>> It does seem helpful and useful to propose that future new extension headers
>> be TLV encoded. While it seems obvious from 2460 that this was the intent,
>> I cannot find that explicitly stated anywhere. I would support this draft
>> simply stating that and no more. This shou
On Dec 20, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Tony Li wrote:
>
> I do not support this work. It seems ill conceived and unnecessary.
>
> If there are needs for new extension headers, they should be presented. If
> the data must be carried as an extension header, then specific new extension
&
I do not support this work. It seems ill conceived and unnecessary.
If there are needs for new extension headers, they should be presented. If the
data must be carried as an extension header, then specific new extension
headers should be defined for those code points.
Tony
On Dec 20, 2010,
>> I know of a LAN that's currently operating with more than 30k nodes on it.
>
> With a single IPv4 or IPv6 subnet on it?
Yes. It's a mesh of L2 switching.
Tony
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administ
> Lets not make P2P links a special case. Lets do the job properly. Lets
> make node addresses 8 bits or less.
I know of a LAN that's currently operating with more than 30k nodes on it.
I won't embarrass folks by naming names. ;-)
Tony
--
As I wrote, I can't see how we could convince the world from going
from where we are now to a world that requires people to change
their network stack, add a new piece of infrastructure, and to
change applications at the same time. That won't happen, any
more. Even a "killer application"
NANOG = network operators in the sense of ISPs and the like. The
solution that the shim6 is working on does NOT apply to this
demographic.
The ISP community is the primary direct beneficiary of shim6 and will
have to work with their customers to help implement it. If the
operational commu
