Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Thomas Narten wrote:
or even strongly cautions against using extension headers.
Why? If someone later comes up with a problem, and extension headers
(despite any drawbacks w.r.t. deployed code) seem like the best
answer, we can have a conversation about the pros and cons then.
When some other WG designs a solution like this, they are not going to
ask IPv6 WG and not necessarily even any IPv6 expert on guidance for
this, because they don't think they're designing an extension header
-- rather a new IP protocol which just happens to support (or be
extended to support) Next Header types other than IPPROTO_NONE.
One "new" extension header is shim6. Would it have made more sense as a
destination option?
Stig
We can always push back at IETF last call or IESG review, but without
having a backing of an IETF consensus document to say "you really
shouldn't be doing this unless you have very good reasons for it"
would be helpful in that dialogue.
It'd be even more helpful because folks could be pointed to it (or
could find it themselves) before the issue even arose at the end of
the process (when it's usually much too late to fix it in any case).
(FWIW I'd like to see a similar consensus document on Router Alert
option..)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
