Hi, Joe, On 8/3/19 04:57, Joe Touch wrote: > > On 3/7/2019 9:03 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: [....] >> 2) Encapsulate extension headers and following transport packet in GUE/UDP > > Which, as I noted, undermines the useful work performed by firewalls. > > All so we can have routers process options - something they basically > don't do anyway...(I don't know who's pushing otherwise in 6man, but > this issue has been a big one for *many* years)
Not sure what you mean. The argument has typically been as follows: * Folks need to get some upper-layer values (see: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops for reasons) * EHs make that painful * As a result, many folks frop EHs. See RFC7872 * In some circles this is well-understood and "no problem", in others it is probably "incomfortably understood" and prefer not to talk about it + the conversation would boil down to something like: - this feature is not usable on the public internet - many devices are not really IPv6-ready (standards wise) - with the previous two issues probably suggesting that the functionality should be removed. + fwiw, i don't care that much about the outcome, as long as there's some level of convergence among specs, devices, and deployed reality Thanks! Cheers, -- 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
