On 07/17/2014 04:38 PM, Joe Touch wrote: >>> >>> They need to be characterized as what they are: >>> >>> - an attempt to accommodate devices that are NOT IPv6-compliant >> >> I'd have a hard time coming uup with a vendor/device that can process >> IPv6 packets with HBH header with the same performance as regular >> packets. So.. are you suggesting that we start claiming that "we >> currently do not know of any ipv6-compliant routers", or what? (fwiw, I >> expect you are not) > > If we are, then it's time to adjust RFC2460.
I disagree. Operational policy != protocol specification. Actually, the IETF can do whatever it wants with the protocol specs, but not that much with the operational stuff (other than providing *advice* -- because ops folks can do whatever they want with their networks). > IMO, we ought to: > > - define the features/capabilities we think are necessary > > - require that anything that doesn't support what's necessary > as non-compliant > > Otherwise, you're just un-doing all the work that goes into the > standards process in the first place. All because you think that > anything you don't expect is an attack. It isn't. It just means you're > not prepared. We seem to be in disagreement. If anything, anything that I don't want is not an attack, but rather an unnecessary attack surface. But again, please read the I-D... because it really doesn't follow that reasoning. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
