Hi Jukka,
unrecognized header
indeed, this would normally be a consideration for an extension
header, together with a regime for administration of an extension
number space.
However, running the full gamut of protocol design considerations
explicitly wasn't my objective here.
My assumption was that management of extensions and their semantics
was part of setting up the network.
Specifically:
AB=00 ("Mandatory"): If the object is not understood, the entire
message containing it MUST be rejected, and an error message sent
back.
If that is the objective, you might as well use NALP.
AB=01 ("Ignore"): If the object is not understood, it MUST be
deleted
and the rest of the message processed as usual.
This is the assumption here.
AB=10 ("Forward"): If the object is not understood, it MUST be
retained unchanged in any message forwarded as a result of message
processing, but not stored locally.
I'm not sure that is needed (or even possible, without imposing way
more structure on the extension headers).
So my question to the list would be:
Is the minimal extension header I proposed the right approach or do we
really have a requirement for the full benefits of extensibility and
composability that a full-blown extension header approach would bring?
Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
