On 17 Nov 2010, at 03:52 , Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:58:39 -0500, Steven Blake wrote: >> This does not address Ran's comment: why would we ever need a new >> extension header? Why aren't the Hop-by-Hop Options and Destination >> Options extension headers sufficient? Neither of the drafts above > motivate >> this need. > > Tunnel specific extension header, efficient low overhead extension header, > ... whatever.
Those are all destination oriented, and do NOT meet the narrow special-case criteria in RFC-2460 Section 4.6, so those are *already prohibited* as IPv6-specific extensions by Section 4.6 of RFC-2460. Separately, the IETF already has more tunnel headers than it needs, so the IESG is extremely unlikely to approve something new, and instead is likely to tell folks proposing another tunnel header to reuse something that already exists. > The current extension header mechanism isn't practical, RFC-5570 and draft-rja-ilnp-nonce are existence proofs that the current mechanisms ARE practical to use. (Really, I've got more experience with this than most folks. :-) > but why should we wipe out these extension header at all? Indeed, we ought not. We ought to be using them as intended, because we have existence proofs they work well. :-) > Introduce GIEH as a generic container and everything is fine. Not correct. Other IETF Areas and other IETF WGs might still define extensions that don't follow draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr. By its very language, that I-D is specific to IPv6, and doesn't apply across the entire IETF. Yours, Ran -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
