Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
I support this effort as I think it will "future proof" extension
headers as far as stateful firewalls are concerned - but what I'm
interested in is finding out how much demand for new extension headers
there is out there - and what those new extension headers would be.
I can agree that it's good to check demand, but I think it is good to
do the "future proofing" anyway. Things can then be implemented today
and work correctly (as in ignoring unknown headers and still finding
the transport) if new headers are introduced later.
An alternative approach could perhaps be to set aside a small range of
protocol values for future extension headers?
Stig
- Wes
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Brian Haberman
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:17 AM
To: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Consensus call on adopting draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr
All,
The 6MAN chairs would like feedback from the working group on
adopting draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr as a WG item. Please send your
comments/opinions to the mailing list (or the chairs) by May 7, 2010.
Regards,
Brian & Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
