Hi Vishwas,
On 10-04-26 05:13 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
Hi Stig,
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?
I do not think it is an alternative approach. The values tell its an
extension header (and are required look at my previous mail) and
follows the format defined, but the structure still needs to be
defined.
I think Stig means reserving a few IP protocol values for extension
headers. It is certainly an alternative approach (the scheme proposed in
the draft uses only one protocol number and demultiplexes extension
headers based on the "Specific Type" field)
Thanks
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
