> -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Hain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:52 PM > > As I recall the primary goal was to allow a system to state a specific > transit path because it was the one that the subscriber had a > contract with. > Think dialing a local number to get a specific long-distance carrier's > presence, rather than paying the extortion rate that the > local provider > charges for their random selection of long-distance.
That makes good sense for the sending host. But the receiving host would have no reason to forward anything beyond the destination address of the packet, no matter what the extension header says. Except for the case of multiple IP addresses in that host, which I had not considered. If Steve Deering wanted all hosts, whether set to forward packets or not, to process extension headers, my only conclusion is that he was thinking of multiple IP addresses in that host. Just trying to figure out what the corner cases are. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
