Hi, Tom,
> On Sep 26, 2019, at 7:54 AM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> Your arguments seems to be more against use of Hop-by-Hop options in general.
My concern is that you are trying to copy what appears to be a failed approach.
I have no position on whether it *should* fail, but more rather that it *has*.
I.e., I’m following your logic:
- IPv4 options are not deployed and so are not useful
I agree completely. But isn’t the same true for IPv6 HBH?
If not, can you provide *an example of a widely deployed HBH option in current
use*?
> Last time I checked, Hop-by-Hop options have not been deprecated by IETF.
> Neither do I see why it's incumbent on us to show they're widely deployed as
> a prerequisite to developing them. Additionally, what is the evidence that
> they're not widely deployed-- for instance do we _know_ for a fact that
> they're not deployed in some large private network? (IOAM is targeted to
> closed networks). For that matter if we only are allowed to work with
> protocols that are widely deployed, then how could we ever work on new
> protocols? E.g. why should we develop new UDP options when they currently
> they have no deployment.
Agreed, but your logic leads to the conclusion that you should be using IPv4
options (unless you show that space is a problem) first.
If that is a problem, then an IP protocol is sufficient, as it was for IPsec.
I see no need for an IPv4 framework to address a problem that doesn’t need that
*framework*.
Joe_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
