In your previous mail you wrote: There is value in a mechanism that the origin host can trust that a remote router will see its intent. If you are strictly talking about endpoint conversations, yes using an extension header is appropriate. The point is that an application needs to communicate with routers along the path and know that some random transit administration hasn't changed the message. => I believe we agree: I never wanted that some random transit administration may change my messages, in fact I'd like that all random transit administration may only look at what is needed for advanced routing, i.e. the IPv6 (and hop-by-hop if any) header(s). Especially they may not look at upper layer elements like ports which are nothing to do with routing: my idea is that upper layer elements should be protected as the content of (surface) mails. I have an anology about transparent when the moon is not gibbous middle boxes: if someone takes your surface mail and faxes it without your agreement to your correspondent post office you don't consider this as a service improvement and you'll loudly complain (argh! In American English the right term is "sue").
Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: so I am still happy if the zero label one-way mutability is restricted to a router in the domain of the sending or receiving node. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
