I've read the I-D draft and all the discussion on this thread so far. I
support publication of this draft as an Informational RFC. We have
customers who expressed strong interest in migrating to an MLS IPv6
implementation. I suspect customers are suffering from very limited
option space in IPv4 header. Having an information RFC encourages IPv6
migration as well as fostering inter-operable implementations. We, at
Sun Microsystems, plan to implement this in OpenSolaris once it becomes
an RFC. IMO, not having an information RFC in this space won't stop
vendors from producing an MLS IPv6 product because customer demands
clearly exist. There will be non inter-operable implementations.
Insertion/removal of this option can be made to work with PMTU. There is
working code to do similar things in OpenSolaris today. I'm happy to
contribute some text to make it more clear if needed.
Jarrett Lu
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
