On Nov 18, 2010, at 16:17, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > Adding any extension header, other than an option carried within the existing > IPv6 Destination Options header or the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header, breaks > that important operational capability. We all ought to try really hard to > avoid breaking deployed standards-compliant IPv6 networks.
This sounds like a topic for an important, but so far unwritten, Informational draft. An alternative approach to addressing the problems that motivated this draft would be if RFC 2460 could be revised or updated somehow to reflect an IETF consensus, assuming one could be found, to the effect that no further IPv6 extension header types are expected to be defined for the rest of the operational lifetime of the IPv6 standard. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, communications engineering -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
