On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Thomas Narten wrote:
or even strongly cautions against using extension headers.
Why? If someone later comes up with a problem, and extension headers
(despite any drawbacks w.r.t. deployed code) seem like the best
answer, we can have a conversation about the pros and
FWIW, I largely agree with Bob.
The biggest issue I see with this is that this document requires code
changes on routers in anticipation of a some vague, future possible
new extension type.
I strongly suspect that any such RFC will be largely ignored by
vendors and thus won't be implemented. And
Hi Folks,
Thanks a lot for the comments. I don't see myself ever requesting a
new extension header and I would use Options instead, but since someone
has the option to request one, we need to tighten up the spec. I would
be just as happy if a new document or RFC2460bis (if any) would
Thanks a lot for the comments. I don't see myself ever requesting a
new extension header and I would use Options instead, but since someone
has the option to request one, we need to tighten up the spec.
Actually, I disagree with your conclusion. Just because something
isn't explicitely
Su,
On Oct 19, 2006, at 5:49 PM, ext Su Thunder wrote:
If we can predict that many new extension headers will be defined
in the future,a new draft for the router to recognize the newly
defined extension header will be neccessary.For example,we can
define a set of parameters including the
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 04:07:15PM -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote :
I have submitted a draft requesting a standard format for IPv6
extension headers. I would appreciate any comments on it.
I think I don't understand why one would need new extension headers,
instead of adding
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 04:07:15PM -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote :
I have submitted a draft requesting a standard format for IPv6
extension headers. I would appreciate any comments on it.
I think I don't understand why one would need new extension
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 04:07:15PM -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote :
I have submitted a draft requesting a standard format for IPv6
extension headers. I would appreciate any comments on it.
I think I don't understand why one would need new extension
draft on IPv6 extension headers
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 04:07:15PM -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote :
I have submitted a draft requesting a standard format for IPv6
extension headers. I would appreciate any comments on it.
I think I don't understand why
On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:53 AM, Su Thunder wrote:
I don't think your comment is a problem. Whether a block of memory
is payload or an extension header is determined by the Next Header
value of the immediately preceding header, not whether the
extension header is known or unknown. A node should
Fred Baker wrote:
On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:53 AM, Su Thunder wrote:
I don't think your comment is a problem. Whether a block of memory is
payload or an extension header is determined by the Next Header value
of the immediately preceding header, not whether the extension header
is known or
From draft...
However, some intermediate nodes such as firewalls, may need to
look at the transport layer header fields in order to make a
decision to allow or deny the packet. If new extension headers are
defined and the intermediate node is not aware of them, the
intermediate
Suresh,
[No hats on]
Hi Folks,
I have submitted a draft requesting a standard format for IPv6
extension headers. I would appreciate any comments on it.
I really like reading clear and concise drafts!!! Thanks!
While I agree that the problem that your draft is addressing is real,
I
extension header.
- Original Message -
From: Bob Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Suresh Krishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: New draft on IPv6 extension headers
Suresh,
[No hats on]
Hi Folks,
I have submitted a draft
Hi Folks,
I have submitted a draft requesting a standard format for IPv6
extension headers. I would appreciate any comments on it.
Thanks
Suresh
Original Message
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-00.txt
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:50:02 -0400
From: [EMAIL
15 matches
Mail list logo
