>> and, if we do mbz, they can then write the rfc which changes that > The problem then is all the implementations -- or firewalls -- that > will check that the bits really are zero upon receipt. If you want > MBZ, say "sender MUST set to zero; receiver and middle boxes MUST NOT > check".
as i thought it was the stated mbz formulation, i was assuming this. > Then you have to hope that folks listen to that part. Especially for > firewalls, I wouldn't count on that. (For precedent, so to speak, look > at what happened with the ECN bits when a particular version of Linux > started using them.) hmmm. i think i am starting to reconsider. idiots are soooo creative. randy -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
