Ron, all, I have reviewed this specification. I have a few technical issues and one question to the community about IPv6 support in this space.
Technical issues: > - An ICMP Extension Structure MAY be appended to any ICMP message > except for those excluded below. Given the nature the extensions we can do at this stage, and the goals of this draft, I think it would be much better if the draft explicitly restricted itself to a known subset of ICMP messages (as opposed to "any"). > 5. Backwards Compatibility I have some unease about this section, mainly due to the central role that the interoperability with the currently deployed extension scheme that is not compatible with what this spec says. It is indeed important that we document how to stay interoperable to the old extension scheme. However, Section 5.5 almost recommends making a non-compliant implementation due to the backwards compatibility reasons. I would suggest requiring compliant behaviour and then allowing backwards compatibility mode to be enabled through configuration or traceroute option. Perhaps also some editorial changes. This issue was also raised by the two reviewers that I asked to look at this spec (Joe Touch and Pekka Savola; thanks for your reviews! The detais have been forwarded to Ron.). The question: In the discussion on the int-area list it was brought up that that we need to "accept reality" in the IPv4 world but for IPv6 we should design something better. Now, as it turns out, one of reasons for doing this, MPLS traceroute, *has* already been implemented for IPv6, by at least one large vendor. I'd like to get input from this list whether this fact changes any of the conclusions we've had on this topic so far. Including, for instance, that the draft should be silent on IPv6. --Jari _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
