On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 09:52 +0100, 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. > > The current extension header mechanism isn't practical, but why should we > wipe out these extension header at all? Introduce GIEH as a generic > container and everything is fine.
Hop-by-Hop Option and Destination Option headers are both just simple TLV containers for options. GIEH is just a simple TLV container for extension headers. Unless you forsee an option that must be processed both at intermediate nodes and at the destination, I really don't see the point. Regards, // Steve -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
