Hi, Thomas Narten <[email protected]> writes:
> This all leads me to conclude that the node requirements doc should > not make SEND even a SHOULD. Ideally, somewhere between a MAY and > SHOULD. I'd love to see SEND implemented and deployed (so we can > figure out how well it works and fix any shortcomings), but I think it > is premature to recommend its implementation an all nodes. +1 Some implementations have been done, which provided some feedback on the specification (padding in Signature Option, ...) but the main issue IMHO is the lack of feedback from a deployment standpoint (router load, certificates deployment and maintenance, ...). Even if some vendors have various levels of support for the protocol in their routers, there is no major client OS providing a good level of support for the protocol: not available yet in Windows or OS X, available in FreeBSD via the ports (DoCoMo implementation, no upstream maintainer), externally available for Debian, not available in Ubuntu or RedHat ... Cheers, a+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
