> We (me and George Neville-Neil) haveve just submitted an I-D on type 0
> routing header processing. In the meantime, it's available here:
>
> http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/draft-savola-ipv6-rtheader-00.txt
>
> Its approach is "disable by default, but type 0 routing header is
> still a part of a compliant IPv6 implementation". It identifies other
> potential approaches as well as well as lists some open issues.
>
> Joe's draft suggests deprecating type 0, so these are somewhat
> different starting points. Both seemed to gain significant support in
> the WG, so I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to have two
> drafts. That way the WG can probably choose better which approach to
> pursue.
Pekka, i cannot stop wondering how can you keep up like this... you
write drafts too fast...
anyways, recommendations from KAME is presented at
http://www.kame.net/newsletter/20070502/
http://www.kame.net/newsletter/20070502/rthdr0.diff.txt
as the diff to the source code (yes, we believe in running code).
try checking the newsletter as well as the diff frequently
(sorry, we do not do RSS feeds, maybe we should).
itojun2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
