JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
> This example seems too specific to incorporate the extension into the > document at this late stage. The lateness of this proposal was pointed out to me by Erik, but thought I could give a shot nonetheless. > Also, I don't get why the next header is > so special. The reason is that if I am implementing a particular protocol (e.g. SCTP), I don't want to be bothered by errors generated for every other protocol on the node. I would only want errors for my particular protocol. > If we added this, then other implementors would want > filtering based on inner flowlabel, inner hop limit, inner source or > destination addresses, inner extension headers... If they are generally useful, so be it. However, I don't know how great the dangers are of those additional requests. -- David Lehmann Ulticom, Inc. AOL IM: davidULCM 1020 Briggs Road 1-856-787-2729 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
