Hi James,
On 10-04-20 01:35 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
On Apr 20, 2010, at 09:56, Rémi Després wrote:
Using the experimental status seems to me confusing (and why two numbers
instead of one?)
There are two numbers reserved for protocols, and I was plagued by the
hobgoblins of consistency. I suppose we could assign only one. Or more than
two. It's a discussion point.
If the draft becomes a standard-track RFC, as originally proposed but so far
insufficiently supported, we will have all what is needed, simply an cleanly.
Okay... how do you propose that IPv6 nodes and/or packet analyzers
programmatically distinguish between extension headers and upper-layer
transports if they are given only an unrecognized protocol number without
access to the online IANA assigned protocol numbers database?
Simple. All future IPv6 extension headers will use the same next header
value (the one allocated for the GIEH). Anything else can be considered
a unknown upper layer header.
Cheers
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
